OX  THE    DISTRIBUTION   AND    TENURE   OF   LA>TDS,   AND   THE 

CUSTOMS  WITH   RESPECT   TO   INHERITANCE,  AMONG 

THE  ANCIENT   MEXICANS. 


BY  AD.  F.  BAXDELIER. 


IN  a  previous  paper  we  have  endeavored  to  describe  the  warlike 
customs  and  organization  of  the  Mexican  tribe.1  Our  conclusions 
in  regard  to  them  are  somewhat  at  variance  with  those  generally 
adopted,  since,  instead  of  the  military  despotism  which  heretofore 
has  been  admitted  as  existing  in  ancient  Mexico,  we  found  but  the 
military  democracy  peculiar  to  a  warlike  tribe.2  It  is  our  purpose 
now  to  investigate  how  far  the  Mexicans  may  have  progressed  in 
their  notions  about  the  tenure  and  distribution  of  the  soil. 

The  picture  which  nearly  all  the  authors,  ancient  as  well  as 
modern,  trace  of  the  condition  of  aboriginal  Mexico  is  that  of  a 
feudal  monarchy.3  This  alone  should  fix  permanently  the  mode  of 
landed  tenure.  It  implies  also  the  notion  of  abstract  ownership, 
and  thus  indicates  a  high  state  of  culture.  But  we  have  already 

1  "  On  the  Art  of  War  and  Mode  of  Warfare  of  the  Ancient  Mexicans,"  in  10th  An 
nual  Report  of  the  Peabody  Museum  of  American  Archaeology  and  Ethnology. 

2  "  Art  of  War,  etc.,  etc.,  of  the  Ancient  Mexicans,"  pp.  113,  114, 115,  to  127  inclusive, 
especially  the  notes.    See  also  "Ancient  Society,"  by  Lewis  H.  Morgan.    (N.  York, 
1877.)    Part  II,  chapter  VII,  "  The  Aztec  Confederacy,"  pp.  1S8-2U  inclusive. 

3  The  first  information   tending  to  represent  the  condition  of  Mexico  as  a  feudal 
state  was  probably  furnished  by  Cortes;  or  through  his  expedition  at  least.    The  re 
ports  of  the  preceding  voyage  of  Grijalva  (1518)  contain  no  positive  statements.    On 
the  other  hand  the  certificate  issued  by  Cortes  (probably  about  the  20  May,  1519,  or  29 
days  after  his  landing  at  Ulna),  to  the  chiefs  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco,  already 
speaks  of  "  the  great  Moutezuma,  which  resides  in  this  great  city  of  Tenochtitlan  and 
all  its  provinces."   We  have  not  Cortes'  first  letter  to  the  emperor,  but  in  his  second  re 
port,  30  Oct.,  1520,  he  mentions  "a  great  Lord  called  Mutezuma."  (Vedia,  "  Historiadores 
primitives  de  Indias,"  Vol.  I.    Carta  Segunda,  pp.  12  and  13.)    The  same  dispatch  con 
tains  a  number  of  details  on  Montezuma's  power,  from  which  a  feudal  empire  was  neces 
sarily  construed  as  for  inst.  (p.  33) :    "  There  are  in  this  great  city  many  very  large  and 
fine  houses,  the  cause  of  it  being  that  all  the  Lords  of  the  land,  vassals  of  the  said  Mu- 
teczuma,  have  their  houses  in  that  city  .  .  .  ."    "What  has  been  ascertained  is:  that 
his  sovereign!}*  was  almost  as  large  as  Spain  .  .  ."  (p.  34.)    Gomara,  who  published  his 
"  Conquifta  de  Mejico"  in  1552,  already  mentions  "thirty  lords  of  one-hundred-thous- 
and  vassals  each,  and  three-thousand  lords  of  places."  (Vedia  I,  p.  345.   "  Corte  y  guarda 
de  Moteczuma.")     Oviedo  ("Historia   general  y  natural  de  Indias,"  Vol.  Ill,  Lib. 

REPORT  PEABODY  MUSEUM,  II.    25. 


386 

seen  that  the  institutions  of  the  Mexicans  were  democratic  and 
not  monarchical,  that  their  chiefs  and  leaders  filled  elective,  and 
in  no  case  hereditary  positions.4  This  latter  fact  whose  final  dis 
cussion  we  reserve  for  another  occasion,  speaks  strongly  against 
the  existence  of  privileged  classes,  based  upon  territory  and 
landed  property ;  therefore  it  also  militates  against  feudality 
itself. 

Still  we  cannot  permit  ourselves  to  become  prejudiced  by  such 
indications,  against  the  views  generally  accepted.  They  merely 
warn  us  of  the  difficulties  of  our  task.  These  difficulties  are 
greater  yet  than  those  against  which  we  contended  in  our  first 
essay.  The  military  life  of  the  Mexicans  has  furnished  the  bulk 
of  their  historj*,  and  through  it  a  number  of  facts,  by  which  the 
former  could  be  almost  restored.  The  question  of  distribution  of 
the  soil,  however,  apparently  relates  to  customs  only ;  broken  up 
and  to  a  great  extent  obliterated  centuries  ago.  Nevertheless, 
accessory  facts,  and  especially  a  merely  cursory  review  of  the 
history  of  the  Mexican  tribe,  may  enable  us  yet  to  form  an  idea  of 
these  customs.  The  Mexican  rules  of  inheritance  are  in  direct 
connection  with  them  also,  and  lastly,  the  acts  of  the  Spaniards 
during  the  first  times  after  the  conquest,  when  they  more  or  less 
suddenly  overturned  the  ancient  order  of  things,  should  bring  to 
light  many  forgotten  features  of  aboriginal  tenure  and  distribution 
of  the  soil. 

Having  thus  sketched  the  programme  —  so  to  say  —  of  our 
work,  we  have  yet  to  offer  two  explanations  ere  we  proceed  to 
enter  upon  the  discussion  proper,  itself. 

In  the  first  place :  by  "  accessory  facts,"  we  refer  to  the  social 
organization  of  the  Mexicans  in  particular.  It  is  inseparable  from 

XXXIII,  cap.  XLVI,  p.  503)  again  speaks  of  "  more  than  three- thousand  lords  his  sub 
jects,  each  one  of  many  vassals,  and  each  held  his  principal  dwelling  in  Temistitan, 
residing  there  certain  months  each  year."  The  author,  a  friend  of  Columbus,  and 
personally  acquainted  with  all  the  eminent  men  of  the  conquest,  resided  at  the  West 
Indies  and  Nicaragua  until  155(5  (his  stay  though  interrupted  by  at  least  six  voyages  to 
Spain  and  back),  was  one  of  the  most  cautious  and  best  situated  of  the  old  chroniclers. 
But  the  chief  originator  of  the  feudal  view  is  Fernando  de  Alva  Ixtlilxocliitl,  a  half 
breed  of  Tezcuco,  ilnd  belonging  to  the  kin  of  that  tribe's  chieftains.  He  wrote  about 
the  year  1  GOO,  and  both  of  his  works,  the  "Kelaciones  historicas,"  and  the  "  Historia 
de  los  Chichimecos  6  reyes  antiguos  de  Tezcuco,"  present,  it  should  not  be  denied,  a 
picture  of  logical  development  of  feudal  institutions  on  Mexican  soil.  Torquemada  of 
course  concurs.  We  hope  to  be  able  to  investigate,  elsewhere,  the  claims  of  Ixtlil- 
xochitl  to  the  rank  of  a  reliable  source.  Fairness,  however,  compels  us  here  to  men 
tion  the  above  authors,  as  the  mainstays  of  current  opinion. 
4 ''  Art  of  War,"  etc.,  pp.  90, 128  and  161. 


387 

landed  tenure,  and  we  therefore  must  recur  to  it  frequently  in  the 
course  of  our  allusions  to  the  history  of  the  tribe. 

Secondly :  we  do  not  pretend  to  review  the  history  of  ancient 
Mexico  as  fully  as  it  should  be  done,  but  only  as  far  as  it  touches 
the  subject  of  this  paper.  Many  points  therefore,  which  ought  to 
be  closely  scrutinized,  will  be  passed  over  lightly,  or  without  any 
discussion. 

One  of  the  most  learned  authors  of  the  16th  century,  on  Amer 
ican  topics,  —  the  Jesuit  father  Joseph  de  Acosta,  says:  "Learned 
men  affirm  and  write  that  the  relations  and  the  memories  of  these 
Indians  do  not  go  further  back  than  four-hundred  years "5 

Indeed,  although  much  has  been  written  about  the  aboriginal 
history  of  Mexico,  it  appears  as  if  the  12th  century  was  the  limit 
of  definite  tradition.*  What  lies  beyond  it  is  vague  and  uncertain, 
remnants  of  traditions  being  intermingled  with  legends  and  myth 
ological  fancies.  Nothing  positive  can  be  gathered  except  that, 
even  during  the  earliest  times,  Mexico  was  settled  or  overrun  by 
sedentary,  as  well  as  by  nomadic  tribes,  —  that  both  acknowledged 

5  "  Historia  natural  y  moral  de  las  Indias,"  Lib.  I,  cap.  XXV,  p.  83.  The  passage 
relates  directly  to  Peru,  but  is  just  as  applicable  to  Mexico. 

e  "  YVe  venture  to  assume  this  period  as  the  one  during  which  traditional  history  of 
Mexico  really  begins.  Of  course,  those  writers  who  have  made  the  fabrication  of  a  Mex 
ican  chronology  a  special  object,  go  much  further  back.  The  late  Abbe  Brasseur  de 
Bourbourg,  for  instance,  quotes  the  "Codex  Chimalpopoca,"  purported  to  bear  date  22 
May.  1558,  and  which  begins  as  follows  (History  of  the  three  suns).  "  This  is  the  begin 
ning  of  the  histories  of  all  kinds  which  happened  a  long  time  ago,  how  the  earth  was 
divided,  and  distributed  to  each  one.  its  origin  and  foundation,  how  the  sun  began  to 
give  to  each  one  his  share,  assigning  the  limits;  there  are  now  six  times  four-hundred 
years,  and  one-hundred  more,  and  thirteen  more  .  .  .  ."  The  distinguished  historian 
concludes  therefrom,  that  955  B.  C.  there  occurred  already,  in  Middle  America,  a  di 
vision  of  lands  according  to  a  systematic  register  ("  Popol-Vuh."  Introduction,  page 
CXI).  Clavigero's-  Chronology  begins  596  A.  D.  ("  Storia  del  Messico,"  Lib.  II,  cap. 
I).  Don  Mariano  Ve3'tia  (•'  Historia  Antigua  de  Mejico,"  published  by  Sr.  Ortega,  1836), 
after  fixing  the  date  of  the  establishment  of  "  Huehuetlapallan,"  to  the  year  2237  of  the 
earth's  creation  (Vol.  I,  cap.  II,  p.  23),  or  1796  B.  C.  (p.  219)  begins  for  the  settlement  of 
the  Toltecs  at  Tolantzinco  in  697  A.  D.  (Cap.  XXII,  p.  121,  ot  1st  volume).  Ixtlilxochitl 
("Histoire  des  Chichimf-ques  ou  des  anciens  rois  de  Tezcuco,"  translation  by  Mr. 
Ternaux  Compans)  says :  (Cap.  II  p.  13)  that  the  Toltecs  founded  Tollan  503  A.  D.  No 
reliance  can  be  placed  on  these  statements  and  dates.  They  are  not  any  longer  tradi 
tional,  but  mythical,  and  although  we  are  far  from  disregarding  the  importance  of 
legends  or  myths  for  historical  investigations,  we  still  cannot  accept  them  as  chrono 
logical  bases.  The  oldest  date  in  the  history  of  Mexico  which  appears  to  be  approxi 
mately  certain  is  that  of  the  settlement  of  the  Mexicans  in  the  marsh  where  they  subse 
quently  built  the  pueblo  of  Tenuchtitlan.  It  would  about  agree  with  A.  D.  1325.  Al 
lowing  two  centuries  more  for  the  period  during  which  the  Mexicans  and  their  kindred 
tribes  reached  the  valley,  we  are  carried  to  the  twelfth  century  as  the  time  from  which 
distinct  tradition  has  yet  reached  us.  What  lies  beyond  can  occasionally  be  rendered 
of  value  for  ethnological  purposes,  but  it  admits  of  no  definite  historical  use. 


388 

a  common  origin,  while  the  sedentary  tribes  were  still  further  con 
nected  together  by  the  bond  of  language, —  and  that  the  original 
home  of  these  people  lay  to  the  north  of  Mexican  territory.  We 
further  can  infer,  that  even  the  sedentary  tribes,  among  which  the 
TOLTECS  are  most  conspicuous,  had  nowhere  advanced  to  the  con 
dition  of  a  nation  or  state;  political  society,  based  upon  territory 
and  landed  property,  being  unknown  to  them.  Their  institutions 
appear  to  have  been  democratic,  their  manner  of  living  communal, 
thus  excluding  the  idea  of  feudality  altogether ;  even  at  those  re 
mote  periods  of  Mexican  history.7  The  usual  inter-tribal  wars, 

7  Our  information  in  regard  to  the  Toltecs  is  limited  and  obscure.  The  name  itself 
appears  to  be  a  surname:  "  Tolteeatl"—  "  official,  de  arte  mecanica,  o  maestro  "  (Mo 
lina,  Vocabulario,  Parte  II.  p.  141)).  Torquemada  (Lib.  I,  cap.  XIV,  p.  37)  "I  merely 
say,  that  Tulteca  signifies  a  skilled  worker  .  .  .  ."  Veytia  (Vol.  I,  cap.  XXI,  pp.  205 
and  -20H) .  Sahagnn  ("Historia  general  de  las  cosas  de  Nueva-Espana,"  edited  by  Don 
Carlos  .Maria  de  Bu.stamante,  Vol.  Ill,  Lib.  X,  cap.  XXIX,  p.  106).  "  First  the  Tultecas, 
signifying  excellent  workmen  .  .  .  ."  (p.  107)  "y  no  tenian  otro  nombre  particular  sino 
este  que  tomaron  de  la  curiosidad,  y  primor  de  las  obras  que  hacian,  que  se  Hamaron 
obras  tultecas,  6  sea  como  si  digesemos,  officiates  pulidos  y  curiosos  .  .  .  ."  Their 
proper  name,  as  we  shall  hereafter  see,  was  "  Chichimecas,"— in  common  with  all  the 
aborigines  of  Mexico.  Even  such  tribes  as  are  reported  to  have  preceded  them,  like  the 
Xicalancas  and  Olmecas,  are  connected  with  reports  indicating  the  same  origin.  Thus 
Motolinia  ("Historia  de  los  Indies  de  Nueva-Espana"  in  Sr.  Icazbalceta's  "  Coleccion 
de  Doctimentos,"  Vol.  I),  says:  ("  Epistola  proemial,"  p.  7),  that  the  Xicalancas  and 
Mexicans  descended  from  sons  of  the  same  father.  Gomara  (•'  Conquista  de  Mejico," 
Vedia  I,  p.  432),  says  the  same,  and  also  that  "  Ulmecatlh  "  was  one  of  their  brothers, 
and  that  from  him  the  Olmecas  descended.  Sahagnn,  however  (Lib.  X,  p.  147),  contra 
dicts,  excluding  the  "Olmecas,  Vistoti,  and  Nonooalca"  from  the  general  appellation 
of  Chichimecas,  but  includes  nearly  all  the  other  tribes  of  Mexico  under  a  common 
origin.  But  Veytia  seems  to  consider  the  Ulmecas  and  Xicalancas  as  descending  from 
the  same  stock  as  the  Toltecs  (Vol.  I,  cap.  XIII,  p.  150);  though  his  statements  might  be 
more  positive  yet.  The  Toltec  language  was  the  "  Nahnatl,"  a  fact  too  frequently  men 
tioned  to  need  any  further  quotations.  Through  it  their  connection  with  the  tribes  of 
the  valley  of  Mexico,  with  the  Tlaxcallans,  Huexotzincas,  Cholullans, —  and  also  the 
Niquirans  of  Nicaragua  is  established  beyond  a  doubt.  Their  division  of  time  and 
numeral  system  (as  far  as  the  language  allows  a  judgment),  was  the  same  as  that  of  the 
natives  of  Michhuacan,  Oajaca.  Chiapas,  Yucatan,  and  Guatemala.  If  we  add  to  these 
indications  those  derived  from  local  myths  and  legends,  we  become  inclined  to  believe 
the  reports,  that  the  aborigines  of  Yucatan  and  Guatemala  for  instance,  are  direct  de 
scendants  of  the  Toltecs,  or  at  least  from  their  original  stock.  This  fact  acquires  a 
certain  importance,  since  it  enables  us,  from  the  condition  of  these  tribes  at  the  time 
of  their  first  contact  with  the  Spaniards,  and  from  their  local  traditions,  to  judge  partly 
of  the  status  of  the  Toltecs,  and  perhaps  to  reconstruct  their  condition  and  organiza 
tion  of  society. 

In  order  to  attempt  an  investigation  of  the  true  condition  of  Toltec  society,  we  have 
to  consider  three  different  points  which  are  the  following:  llep-u-ts  about  the»Toltees, 
contained  in  Mexican  sources;  since  only  in  Mexico  they  wine  called  by  that  name. 
Reports  about  the  condition  of  the  Toltecs  in  Mexico  after  their  reported  dispersion. 
The  condition  and  organization  of  such  tribes,  outside  of  direct  Mexican  iiiHucnce, 
which  still  acknowledged  an  original  connection  with  what  has  been  called  the  Toltecs 
in  Mexico. 

If  we  follow  the  traditions  current  in  the  Mexican  valley,  as  reported  first  by  father 


389 
as  well  between  sedentary  Indians  and  roving  tribes,  as  among  the 

Sahagun  (hardly  any  of  his  predecessors  mentioning  the  Toltecs,— a  fact  not  devoid  of 
importance!)  it  simply  appears  that  the  Toltecs  were  sedentary  people,  therefore  agri 
cultural  and  proportionately  skilled  in  the  use  of  metals  and  stones  (Lib.  X,  cap.  XXIX, 
Vol.  3).  The  same  author,  in  his  tale  about  the  fortunes  of  Quetzalcohuatl,  whom  he 
acknowledged  as  distinctly  connected  with  the  fate  of  the  Toltece,  says  that  (Lib.  Ill, 
cap.  V,  p.  248,  of  Vol.  I) :  the  pueblo  of  Tollan  had  two  chiefs,— that  it  was  engaged  in 
war  with  another  tribe  not  far  distant  (Coatepec,  cap.  VI,  p.  24'.)),—  thus  showing  at  the 
same  time :  that  the  Toltecs  were  not  subject  to  a  ruler  residing  in  Tula,  as  is  commonly 
reported,  but  that  Tula  (or  Tollan),  was  the  settlement  of  a  tribe,  without  authority  over 
any  others.  There  are  other  indications,  in  this  very  legend  of  Quetzalcohuatl,  to  show 
that  the  Toltecs  of  Tula  were  very  independent  from  their  chiefs  (See  cap.  VI  to  XI). 
Further  on,  if  we  follow  the  peregrinations  of  Quetzalcohuatl  after  the  same  authority, 
it  strikes  us  that  this  mythical  personage  travels  through  a  singularly  disjointed  coun 
try.  Everywhere  he  meets  strange  places  (Cap.  XII  to  XIV),  not  subject  to  the  tribe 
from  which  he  originally  went  out. 

Torquemada  ("Monarchia  Indiana,"  Lib.  I,  cap.  XIV,  p.  37),  is  more  detailed.  He 
asserts  that  the  Toltecs  were  originally  led  by  seven  chiefs,  but  that  after  their  settle 
ment  at  Tulantzinco  they  elected  a  ''king,"  establishing  as  a  rule  that  no  one  of  these 
so-called  monarchs  should  "  rule"  any  longer  than  fifty-two  years,  and  that  if  he  died 
previously  "  the  republic  governed  until  the  expiration  of  the  time."  In  his  relation  of 
the  history  of  Quetzalcohuatl  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VII,  pp.  254,  255,  and  25<>),  whom  he  dis 
tinctly  connects  with  '1  ula,  the  same  fact  is  mentioned  as  in  Sahagun,  namely;  that  the 
inhabitants  of  the  country  were  divided  into  independent  tribes,  such  as  Tula,  Cholula, 
Quauhquechollan  and  others. 

It  is,  however,  Fernando  de  Alva  Ixtlilxochitl,  whose  writings  have  furnished  the 
chief  material  for  the  Toltec  history.  He  gathered  his  facts  from  his  kinsmen,  and,  he 
says,  from  ancient  picture-writings  which  they  explained  to  him  ("Hist,  des  Chichi- 
meques"  Dedication  to  the  vice-roy  of  Mexico  p.  XIII,  and  XIV).  Also  from  songs.  It 
is  a  slender  basis  for  his  otherwise  very  positive  statements,  since  it  may  well  be  ac 
cepted  that  Toltec  picture-writings  did  scarcely  exist  any  more  at  his  time,  unless  we 
except  such  as  are  analogous  to  the  Dresden-Codex  (Humboldt  "  Vues  des  Cordilleres 
et  monuments  des  peoples  indigenes,  etc."  Plate  XLV  of  the  atlas  in  folio),  regarding 
them  as  of  Toltec  origin.  These,  however,  no  Mexican  native  could  have  interpreted 
at  that  time. 

Ixtlilxochitl  also  speaks  of  seven  chiefs  of  the  Toltecs  ("Us  avaient  sept  chefs,  et 
choisissaient  alternativement  un  d'entreux  pour  les  gouverner."  Hist,  des  Chichi- 
meques,"  Cap.  II,  p.  13;  also  "  Segunda  Relacion"  in  Vol.  IX,  p.  323,  of  Lord  Kings- 
borough's  "  Antiquities  of  Mexico.")  He  equally  mentions  the  52  year  period  of  the 
head-chief  (Cap.  II,  p.  13),  and  in  his  "  Tercera  Relacion  "  (p.  325),  but  adds  in  the  •'  Cu- 
arta  Relacion"  (p.  32(5) :  '•  Este  Mitl  goberno  59  afios  y  quebrd  en  la  orden  antigua  de 
los  Tultecas  de  gobernar  52  afios." 

But  he  also  tells  us  in  his  Second  '"  Relation  "  that  at  Tollantzinco  "  they  constructed 
of  planks  a  house  large  enough  to  accommodate  the  entire  nation,"  and  hints  at  a  number 
of  scattered  settlements  springing  up.  though  he  insists  that  these  were  all  dependen 
cies  of  a  great  Toltec  "empire."  Nevertheless,  his  description  of  the  wars  among  the 
Toltecs  ("  quinta  Relacion  ")  is  not  in  favor  of  the  latter  assumption. 

It  Is  mostly  on  such  statements  that  Don  Mariano  Veytia  has  based  the  Toltec  history 
which  forms  the  beginning  of  the  "  Historia  antigua  de  Mejico."  —  But  the  eminent  Mex 
ican  scholar  (he  wrote  about  the  middle  of  the  18th  century)  has  added  some  other  de 
tails,  which  we  dare  not  neglect  here. 

In  common  with  all  the  others,  Veytia  places  the  origin  of  the  Toltecs  to  the  North, 
where  he  locates  the  great  city  of  Huehuetlapallan.  Of  this  great  city  he  says  :  "  The 
houses  in  which  they  dwelt,  as  wrell  in  the  city  as  in  the  other  settlements  were  then  (and 
for  many  centuries  afterwards,  although  they  had  Kings  and  governments  already)  but 
natural  caverns,  which  they  also  imitated.  These  were  all  their  dwellings,  they  sub- 


390 
village-Indians  themselves,  were  waged  during  these  earty  periods. 

eisted  on  fruits,  herbs  and  the  chase,  and  dressed  in  the  skins  of  wild  beasts " 

(Vol.  I,  cap.  Ill,  p.  25.)  — From  this  place  there  went  out  bands  or  families  (Cap.  II,  p. 
24),  "  taking  each  one  a  different  name,  alter  that  of  the  chief  or  father  of  the  family 
leading  them,"  and  one  of  tnese  bands  were  the  Toltecs. 

These  were  again  composed  of  seven  lineages  (Cap.  XXI,  p.  207),  and  the  govern 
ment  "  resided  in  the  seven  principal  chiefs"  (Cap.  XXII,  p.  214).  Describing  the  per 
egrinations  of  this  tribe  until  they  reached  central  Mexico,  he  again  mentions  the  large 
house  made  at  Tollantzinco  '"in  which  when  completed,  all  the  people  found  room" 
(Cap.  XXII,  p.  221),  and  finally  (Cap.  XXIV,  p.  227),  the  formal  change  made  by  free 
common  consent  of  all  the  Toltecs,  of  their  heretofore  democratic  government  into  a 
despotic  monarchy,  with  descent  in  the  male  line,  but  the  term  of  office  of  each  of  these 
despots  limited  to  fifty-two  years  (Cap.  XXV).  We  also  read  of  a  number  of  pueblos 
co-existing  with  Tollan,  but  reputed  subject  to  it,  in  direct  opposition  to  Sahagim 
and  Torquemada,  and  even  sometimes  to  himself.  Of  course,  there  are  abundant 
details  about  the  arts  and  sciences  attributed  to  the  Toltecs,  the  magnificence  of  their 
buildings,  etc.,  etc.  To  all  these  we  shall  refer  on  another  occasion.  In  regard  to 
weapons  and  military  costume  Veytia  confirms  what  we  have  already  said  (Art  of  War, 
p.  126,  and  note  No.  124),  about  the  great  analogy  between  the  Mexicans  proper  and 
other  tribes  of  older  date  (See  cap.  XXXIII,  p.  289). 

Veytia  was  the  precursor  and  cotemporary  of  the  Abbe  Clavigero,  but  the  latter's 
•work,  "  Storia  antica  del  Messico"  was  printed  fifty- six  years  previous  to  the  writings 
of  the  former.  Clavigero's  statements  are,  in  a  condensed  form,  but  a  repetition  of 
those  of  Veytia,  with  whom  he  corresponded. 

If  we  now  attentively  consider  the  above  we  shall  readily  see : 

(1).  That  the  Toltecs  were  descended  from  at  least  semi-nomades. 

(2).  They  were  organized  in  consanguine  groups,  governmentally  sovereign,  whose 
chiefs  formed  the  council  of  the  tribe. 

(3).  They  possessed  a  head  war-chief,  elected  for  life,  since  the  limitation  of  the  office 
for  fifty-two  years  is  in  itself  a  concession,  that  the  incumbent  held  it  for  life 
time. 

(4).  They  practised  communism  in  living. 

(5).  Consequently,  their  organization  and  institution  was  democratic,  not  monarchi 
cal,  and  the  picture  of  a  feudal  empire  among  them  is  erroneous. 

It  is  generally  admitted  that  in  the  10th  or  llth  century  of  our  era,  the  Toltecs  of 
Mexico  were  dispersed ;  only  a  few  settlements  remaining:  Of  these  the  principal  were 
removed  to  Tezcuco  "where  they  founded  four  quarters,  since  the  Culliuas,  as  the 
Toltecs  were  then  called,  formed  four  families  "  (Ixtlilxochitl,  "Hist,  des  Chichimeques," 
cap.  XIII,  p.  87.  Mr.  Ternaux  has  translated  "tribes"  but  the  Spanish  original  has 
"families.")  This  is  a  further  evidence  of  what  we  have  advanced,  the  four  quarters 
being  consanguine  groups  localized,  or  "gentes,"  as  Mr.  Morgan  has  established  the 
term  in  "Ancient  Society."  Feudalism,  however,  is  incompatible  with  gentile  society. 

Those  of  the  Toltecs  who  emigrated  are  reported  to  have  fled  to  the  South  where 
perhaps  others  of  their  language  had  preceded  them.  Among  such  as  have  been  re 
ported  of  the  same  origin,  the  Maya  of  Yucatan,  and  the  QQuiche  of  Guatemala  are 
most  prominent.  Sr.  Orozco  y  Berra,  in  his  excellent  work  "  Geogral'ia  de  las  Lenguas 
y  Carta  Etnografica  de  Mexico,"  regards  the  Maya  and  QQuiche  as  sister-languages 
(Part  I,  cap.  IV,  p.  18).  If  the  assumption  is  correct  that  they  are  of  Toltec  descent, 
the  reports  about  the  condition  of  these  tribes  at  the  time  of  the  conquest,  or  in  their 
undisturbed  aboriginal  condition,  are  of  weight  for  this  discussion. 

Yucatan,  at  the  time  of  its  first  discovery  (1517),  was  inhabited  by  numerous  seden 
tary  tribes,  not  connected  with  each  other  (Bernal  Diez  del  Castillo,  "Ilistoria  verda- 
dera  de  la  Conquista  de  Nueva  Espaiia,"  cap.  XXIX,  p.  24,  in  Vedia,  Vol.  II.  Villagut- 
ierre  y  Sotomayor  "  Historia  de  la  Conquista  y  Reduccion  de  los  Itzaex  y  Lacandoues," 


391 
Sometimes   the   latter,  then  again   the    savages   prevailed,  until 

Lib.  I,  cap.  V,  p.  28  and  29.  Antonia  de  Herrera  "  Historia  general  de  los  hechos  de  los 
Castellanos  en  las  Islas  y  la  Tierra  Firme  del  Mar  Oceano,"  Dec.  IV,  Lib.  X,  cap.  II,  p. 
208,  and  cap.  Ill,  p.  208),  except  through  their  common  language.  These  tribes  con 
sisted  (^  Lineages  or  consanguine  groups.  Herrera  says  (Dec.  IV,  Lib.  X,  Cap.  IV, 
p.  211) :  "  They  are  very  proud  of  their  ancestry,  by  which  they  all  regarded  themselves 
as  relatives,  assisting  each  other  greatly.  Their  style  of  living  was  communal.  Lorenzo 
de  Bienvenida,  in  his  letter  to  the  Emperor,  dated  10th  February,  1548,  Yucatan  ("Re- 
cueil  de  pieces  relatives  a  la  ConquGte  du  Mexique")  states:  "Your  highness  must 
know  that  it  is  very  rare  to  find  a  house  with  but  one  inhabitant,  all  have  two,  three, 
four,  six,  and  even  more,  among  which  the  father  of  a  family  is  chief  (p.  331).  When, 
in  1698,  the  last  pueblo  inhabited  by  Maya  Indians,— Tayasal  on  Lake  Peten,  was  cap 
tured  by  Don  Martin  Urstia,  it  was  found  that  the  houses  "  were  dirty  within  and  un- 
swept.  All  the  inhabitants  lived  brutally  together,  an  entire  relationship  together  in 
one  single  house."  (Hist,  de  la  Conquista  de  los  Itzaex,  Lib.  VIII,  cap.  XII,  p.  494).  We 
have  already  alluded  to  the  fact  the  Itzaex  had  two  chiefs.  ("  Ait  of  War,"  p.  12G,  note 
No.  121.  The  information  is  taken  from  the  work  just  mentioned,  Lib.  VIII).  See 
further,  on  the  Maya,  L.  H.  Morgau's  ''Ancient  Society"  (Part  II,  chapter  VI,  p.  181). 
These  indications  do  not,  certainly,  speak  in  favor  of  feudality  among  the  natives  of 
Yucatan. 

The  territory  of  Guatemala,  when  first  visited  by  Pedro  de  Alvarado,  in  1524,  was 
also  divided  into  a  number  of  sedentary  tribes,  living  in  bitter  enmity  together.  Of  these 
tribes  the  QQuiche  of  Utlatlan  or  rather  Gmnarcaah,  near  where  Santa  Cruz  del  Quiche 
now  stands,  are  best  known.  Their  history  has  been  written  by  Juarros  ("  Compendio 
de  la  Historia  de  Guatemala,"  1808-1818),  who  especially  bases  upon  the  MSS.  of  the 
Captain  Francisco  Antonio  Fuentes  y  Guzman,  who  wrote  about  1690,  a  "Recordacion 
florida"  now  acknowledged  to  be  full  of  exaggerations  and  misstatements.  Juarros 
makes  the  QQuiche  direct  descendants  of  the  Toltecs,  and  after  their  settlement  in  Guat 
emala  under  a  certain  King  named  "  Nimaquiche,"  he  gradually  builds  up  there  a 
mighty  feudal  Empire,  which  was  in  its  splendor  when  the  Spaniards  overthrew  it. 
The  empire  is  already  disproved  by  the  first  two  letters  of  Alvarado  (See  Vol.  I  of 
Vedia's  collection),  by  Hererra  (Dec.  Ill,  Lib.  V,  Cap.  X,  p.  166),  who  also  states  (Dec. 
Ill,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  XVIII,  p.  141),  that  the  QQuiche  had  three  chiefs  "  and  that  the  elec 
tion  was  made  by  the  principals  in  the  same  way,  as  it  has  been  told  of  Mexico,"  Tor- 
quemada  (Lib.  XII,  Cap.  VIII,  p.  38(5),  goes  still  further  by  asserting  that  the  heads  of 
families  (ltlos  que  eran  Cabegas  de  Familias  o  Casas  Solariegos")  had  the  right  to  kill 
the  "  king"  for  misdemeanor.  He  also  considers  the  Toltecs  the  first  settlers. 

But  the  document  which  conveys  the  most  detailed  information  of  the  QQuiche"  is 
the  "Popol-Vuh."  This  singular  production,  which  wre  consult  in  its  publication  and 
translation  by  Mr.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg,  appears  to  be,  for  the  first  chapters,  an  evi 
dent  fabrication,  or  at  least  accommodation  of  Indian  mythology  to  Christian  notions;— 
a  pious  fraud.  But  the  bulk  is  an  equally  evident  collection  of  original  traditions  of 
the  Indians  of  Guatemala,  and  as  such  the  most  valuable  work  for  the  aboriginal  history 
and  ethnology  of  Central  America.  We  cannot  here  enter  into  a  bibliographical  dis 
cussion.  A  few  quotations  from  the  third  part  of  the  Popol-Vuh  will,  however,  be  indis 
pensable  (Cap.  Ill,  p.  207).  After  having  given  the  names  of  the  four  mothers  of  the 
QQuiche:  "  Balam  Quitze  is  the  grandfather  and  father  of  the  nine  great  houses  of 
Cavek;  Balam  Agab  is  the  ancestor  and  father  of  the  nine  great  houses  of  Nimhaib; 
Mahucutah  the  ancestor  and  father  of  the  four  great  houses  of  Ahau  Quiche.  They 
existed  in  three  divisions  of  families  without  forgetting  the  name  of  their  grandfather 
and  of  their  father,  which  extended  and  grew  in  the  East."  This  is  the  beginning  of  a 
true  genealogy,  and  it  is  carried  through  with  great  precision. 

Then  follows  a  long  description  of  how  each  of  these  "  families  "  received  an  idol 
for  itself,  whereas  "  one  was  the  name  of  their  God,  and  they  were  divided  afterwards  " 
(Cap.  IV,  p.  217).  Then  they  moved  to  "  Tulan-Zuiva,  at  the  seven  caves,  seven  ravines." 
At  that  time  they  had  yet  but  skins  of  animals  to  cover  themselves  with,  but  "at  Zuiva 


392 

finally  the  Toltecs,  who  represented  the  sedentary  class,  were 
either  exterminated  or  expelled  ;  only  a  few  scattered  settlements 
remaining  on  Mexican  territory.8  Their  successors  on  the  soil 
were  tribes  of  utter  savages  hailing  from  the  north  also,  and  to 
whom  the  vague  and  indefinite  appellation  of  Chichimecas  is  given. 
(If  the  word  is  Mexican,  it  might  derive  from  "  Chichiltic  "  red, 

Tnlan  they  forthwith  acquired  wisdom."  This  is  a~ striking  analogy  indeed  with  the 
Mexican  traditions  above  reported  about  the  first  times  of  the  Toltecs.  Settling  at 
Izmachi,  they  occupied  four  quarters  "  they  already  covered  four  hills  who  together  bore 
the  names  of  their  tribe  *'  (Mr.  Brasseur  translates  "  tinamit"  sometimes  by  tribe  and 
again  by  town,  I  prefer  the  former).  At  Izmachi  they  built  houses  of  lime  and  stone 
(Cap.  VII,  p.  301).  "But  only  three  palaces  were  erected  at  Izmachi,  the  twenty-four 
palaces  were  not  yet  erected,  but  only  three,  one  of  those  of  Cavek,  one  single  palace 
at  the  face  of  those  of  Nihaib,  as  likewise  a  single  one,  possession  of  those  of  Ahau 
Quiche."  Recapitulating  the  festivals  it  is  mentioned  "For  this  reason  the  three 
branches  assembled  in  the  palaces  named  after  them,  where  they  drank  their  beverages, 
and  ate  their  meals,  price  of  their  sisters  and  daughters,  and  with  their  hearts  full  of 
joy,  they  but  ate  and  drank  out  of  their  painted  cups  within  their  palaces"  (p.  305). 
This  is  a  plain  indication  of  communal  meals,  and  of  communal  living.  Finally  it  is 
related  that  at  these  places  "  they  came  to  put  names,  there  they  took  their  titles,  divided 
into  families,  organized  into  seven  "  chinamit"  (kins  not  tribes),  and  classed  themselves 
by  quarters."  Moving  to  Gumarcaah  or  Utlatlan,  there  they  subdivided  into  twenty- 
four  "great  houses" — "the  title  of  all  their  honors  being  distributed  to  each  of  the 
princes,  there  formed  nine  families  with  the  nine  princes  of  Cavek,  nine  with  the  princes 
of  Nihaib,  four  with  the  princes  of  Ahau-Quiche,  and  two  with  the  Lords  of  Zakik" 
(p.  309,  cap.  VIII). 

It  is  easy  to  detect  the  following  points : 

(1).  The  QQuiche  were  originally  organized  in  three  consanguine  groups,  to  which 

latterly  a  fourth  was  added. 

(2).  These  kinships  localized  as  four  quarters,  their  mode  of  life  was  communal. 
(3).  They  subsequently  divided  into  twenty-four  kindred  groups,  constituting  so 

many  gentes. 
(4).  The  government  of  the  tribe  lay  in  the  hands  of  the  chiefs  of  these  gentes. 

This  government,  as  the  last  chapter  of  the  Popol-Vuh  plainly  states,  was  composed 
of  twenty-four  chiefs.  Of  these,  three,  one  from  each  of  three  of  the  "quarters,"  had 
the  title  "Nim-Chocoh"  or  "great  elected  one."  "There  were  consequently  three  Nim- 
Chocoh  (great  elected),  acting  as  the  fathers  of  all  the  chiefs  of  Quiche,  they  met  to 
gether,  commanded  together,  as  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  speech,  and  their  condition 
is  of  the  most  exalted  one."  They  commanded  the  forces  of  the  tribe. 

We  have  here  consequently  the  organization  of  the  QQuiche  as  a  military  democracy, 
based  upon  consanguine  groups,  with  three  elective  war-chiefs  at  its  head.  The  analogy 
of  this  organization  with  that  of  the  Iroquois  is  really  striking.  It  utterly  discards  all 
notions  of  feudality. 

If  now,  as  most  of  the  older  sources  admit,  the  QQuiche  really  belonged  to  Toltec 
stock,  we  believe  that  the  foregoing  certainly  sustains  our  views  of  the  condition  of 
these  tribes,  and  justifies  our  statement  that  the  Toltecs  had  "nowhere  advanced  to  the 
condition  of  a  nation  or  state  "  and  that  their  institutions  were  democratic,  their  manner 
of  living  communal;  monarchy  and  feudality  being  unknown  to  them. 

8  Compare  the  legend  of  Quetzalcohuatl,  as  related  by  Sahagun  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  Ill  to 
XIV,  Vol.  1);  by  Torquemada  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VII),  and  contained  also  in  the  Popol-Vuh, 
where  he  is,  of  course,  called  Gukumatz  (Part  III,  cap.  VIII).  See  further  Veytia 
(Cap.  XXII,  to  the  close  of  Vol.  I). 


393 

and  "mecayotl"  —  consanguine  relationship,  thus:  "the  kin  of 
reel  men.")9  Enough  is  told  us  of  the  condition  of  these  people 
to  establish  ;  that  they  were  roving  nomades  for  whom  the  soil  had 
no  other  importance  than  for  temporary  occupancy  as  hunters, — 
that  even  the  maize  plant  was  unknown  to  them,  and  that  they  re- 

9  The  etymology  of  the  word  "  Chichimecatl "  which  we  have  ventured  to  propose, 
is  not  sustained,  to  our  knowledge,  by  any  author.  We  give  it  for  what  it  may  be  worth. 
Much  has  been  said  about  its  probable  derivation.  Dnran  (*'  Historia  de  las  Yndias  de 
Nueva-Espana  e"  Islas  de  Tierra-firme,"  cap.  II,  p.  13),  says:  "Chichimeca,  que  quiere 
decir  ca?adores  li  gente  qne  viven  de  aquel  oficio  agreste  y  campesina  .  .  .  .  "  thus 
showing  that  the  word  is  Nahuatl,  and  its  explanation  to  be  sought  for  in  Nahuntl  terms. 
Ixtlilxochitl  (u  Relaciones  historicas,"2nd  part,  "  Historia  de  los  Senores  Chichimecas" 
—  "  Relncion  primera,")  says  :  "  the  Toltecs,  Aculhuas,  Mexicans,  and  all  the  other  na 
tions  of  this  land  pretend  to  be  derived  from  the  Chichimecan  race,  thus  called  after 
its  king  Chichimecatl  who  brought  it  to  the  New  World  "  (p.  335  and  336).  Torquemada 
(Lib.  I,  cap.  XV,  p.  39),  affirms  :  "  These  people  took  the  name  of  Chichimecas,  because 
Chichimecatl  signifies  one  who  sucks;  for  Chichiliztti  is  the  act  of  sucking  .  .  .  .;  and 
since  these  people  in  the  origin  ate  the  raw  flesh  of  beasts  and  drank  their  blood,  suck 
ing  it,  they  called  themselves  Chichimecas  or  suckers."  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  II,  p. 
453),  "  they  were  a  very  barbarous  people,  living  solely  from  the  chase,  and  therefore 
they  called  them  Chichimecas."  Betancourt  even  derives  the  word  from  "  chichini"  — 
bones  of  a  dog.  It  is  again  Veytia  who,  with  his  clear  and  positive  judgment  has  gone 
further  than  any  of  his  predecessors.  He  has  been  the  first  (we  think)  to  discover  the 
term  "mecatl"  which  signifies  a  cord  (Cap.  XII,  p.  143),  in  the  last  two  syllables 
of  the  word.  It  naturally  led  him  to  the  allied  term  "  mecayotl "  which  designated  a 
consanguine  relationship,  and  finally  to  the  etymology  of  "  kinship  of  Chichen  "  assum 
ing  Chichen  to  have  been  the  name  of  their  first  chieftain.  There  is  hardly  any  proof 
of  the  latter  however,  and  still  less  that  "Chichimecatl"  was  his  personal  name.  On 
the  other  hand,  all  the  authors  agree  in  stating,  that  the  locality  inhabited  originally  by 
the  Chichimecas  was  called  '•  Huehuetlapallan" —  the  old  red  place — that  one  of  the 
stations  said  to  have  been  occupied  by  tribes  on  their  migrations  towards  Mexico  bears 
the  name  "  Chichilticalli  "  or  red  house.  Our  suggestion  is,  therefore,  not  altogether 
improbable:  that  Chichimecatl  may  have  derived  from  "  chichiltic  "  a  red  object,  and 
" mecayotl''  —  kin  —  therefore  signifying  '-the  kin  of  red  men." 

Senor  Manuel  Orozco  y  lierra,  the  distinguished  author  of  the  "Geografia  de  las 
Lenguas,"  makes  it  very  likely  that  the  Chichimecas  which  invaded  Mexico  after  the 
dispersion  of  the  Toltecs,  or  inhabited  it  jointly  with  them,  spoke  a  different  language 
(Part  I,  cap.  I,  p.  8),  which  has  since  disappeared.  His  opinion  is  sustained  by  that  of 
another  eminent  Mexican  scholar,  Don  Francisco  Pimentel  ("  Cuadro  descriptive  y 
comparative  de  la  lenguas  indigenas  de  Mexico,"  Vol.  I,  p.  155).  Nevertheless,  the 
unity  of  origin  of  the  Chichimecas,  Toltecs  and  other  tribes  of  "Nahuatl"  stock,  Mex 
icans  of  course  included,  is  admitted,  not  only  by  Ixtlilxochitl,  but  already  by  Sahagun 
(Lib.  X.  cap.  XXIX,  p.  147),  who  resumes  as  follows:  "All  these  families  call  them 
selves  Chichimecas,  and  even  pride  and  glorify  themselves  of  such  a  name,  and  it  is 
because  like  Chichimecas  they  went  wandering  over  those  lands  aforesaid,  and  thence 
turned  towards  these  parts,  although  really  such  lands  were  not  called  lands  of  Chichi 
mecas,  but  Tlaotlalpan,  Tlacohcalco,  Mictlanpan,  which  means,  wide  and  spacious 
plains,  lying  towards  the  north."  Veytia,  who  almost  incorporates  the  'statements  of 
all  his  predecessors,  confirms  it  as  follows  :  (Cap.  II,  p.  24).  "  Of  this  empire  (of  the 
Chichimecas)  Huehuetlapallan  was  the  famous  court,  and  from  it  sallied  at  various 
periods  bands  and  squads  to  people  remote  countries,  each  one  taking  its  own  name, 
after  the  chief  or  father  of  family  which  governed  it,  and  becoming  in  course  of  time 
distinct  nations  with  different  languages  or  dialects,  so  that  according  to  the  belief  of 
these  nations  and  from  their  history,  all  the  inhabitants  of  this  new  world  have  sprung 


394 

sorted  to  caves  and  thickets  for  shelter  and  residence.  Landed 
tenure  of  any  kind  we  cannot  expect  to  find  among  them,  and 
still  less  the  system  of  feudality.10 

Ethnographically,  central  Mexico  must  have  presented  an  ap 
pearance,  at  those  times,  similar  to  that  of  the  State  of  New 
Mexico  and  the  territory  of  Arizona  at  present,  in  respect  to 
their  aboriginal  population.  Savage  tribes  swayed  and  roamed 
over  the  greater  part  of  the  country,  while  in  the  valley  of  Mexico 
proper,  and  east  of  it,  some  few  "pueblos"  of  village  Indians  re 
mained,  barely  protecting  their  crops  and  themselves  from  the 
inroads  of  marauding  tribes.11 

from  these  seven  families,  and  this  city  of  Huehuetlapallan  has  the  gloiy  of  having  been 
the  first  settlement  made  in  it  since  the  flood,  and  of  being  the  cradle  of  all  its  people, 
Whose  memory  those  of  New  Spain  have  preserved,  calling  it  their  ancient  home." 

(Compare,  with  this  view  of  the  peopling  of  Mexico,  the  beautiful  expose  of  Morgan, 
of  the  peopling  of  America  from  centres  of  subsistence  as  initial  points  of  migration, 
in  "Ancient  Society"  (Part  II,  cap.  IV,  p.  108).  Mr.  Morgan  recognizes  three  such 
centres  in  N.  America,  the  most  prominent  of  which  is  the  Valley  of  the  Columbia.) 

The  title  of  "Chichimecatl,"  often  extended  to  "  Chichimecatl-tecuhtli,"  is  found 
very  frequently,  not  only  among  the  Mexicans,  but  also  the  Tezcucans  and  Tlaxcallans. 
It  was  an  appellation  given  in  reward  of  personal  merit  in  war. 

10  Ixtlilxochitl  has  depicted  to  us  a  feudal  Chichimecan  Empire,  more  complete  and 
typical  than  the  feudal  institutions  of  England.    But  at  the  same  time  he  describes  the 
Chichimecas  as  mere  savages  ("  Histoire  des  ChichimCques,"  Cap.  IV,  p.  30).  '•  lie  arrived 
in  a  place  called  Tenayucan  Oztopolco,  where  there  were  many  grottoes  and  caves, 
which  formed  the  principal  dwellings  of  that  nation."    Id.  cap.  IX,  p.  (i5  and  <>G),  Tor- 
qnemada  (Lib.  I,  cap.  XV,  p.  38  and  39),  describes  them  a  "  people  naked,  without  robes 
of  cotton,  of  wool,  or  any  other  covering  but  the  skins  of  beasts.    Their  appearance 
was  wild,  they  were  great  warriors,  whose  weapons  are  bows  and  arrows."  .... 
"  This  nation  of  Chichimecas  was  governed  and  ruled  by  valiant  and  valorous  captains 

"    Ixtlilxochitl  further  states  (''Hist.  Chichimeca,"  cap.  IX,  p.  G(i):    "Every 

family  lived  together,  and  such  as  had  no  caves  which  were  their  chief  dwellings,  built 
huts  of  straw.  The  game  was  divided  among  the  family  of  the  hunter  but  the  hide  be 
longed  exclusively  to  him  who  had  killed  it."  The  soil,  therefore,  had  no  other  value 
for  them  than  as  "hunting  grounds."  Nevertheless,  both  of  the  authors  just  quoted 
report  a  distribution  of  the  land  by  their  chiefs,  in  the  shape  of  individual  donations, 
and  feodes  at  an  early  date.  But  Ixtlilxochitl  (Cap.  IX,  p.  «3  and  (U)  asserts  that  the 
culture  of  the  soil,  even  the  maize  plant,  was  unknown  to  them  until  the  twelfth  century 
of  our  era.  Torqnemada  is  still  more  explicit  (Lib.  I,  cap.  XLII,  p.  G7) :  "  Neither  did 
the  Chichimecas  pay  any  attention  to  it  (agriculture  or  horticulture)  for  the  reason  that 
the  Lords  and  Kings  had  parks  ("  Bosques  ")  of  rabbits  and  deer,  which  supplied  them 
with  meat,  and  the  common  people  and  Maceuales  went  after  it  through  the  liel  Is,  tints 
sustaining  themselves  without  any  other  kind  of  work,  and  without  the  toil  of  sowing 
or  planting,  to  which  they  had  not  been  accustomed."  More  than  a  century  elapsed, 
according  to  the  above  sources,  ere  horticulture,  and  therefore  sedentary  living,  began 
to  appear  among  them.  How  could  feudal  tenure  of  the  ground  exist  meanwhile  ?  We 
need  not  refer  here  to  other  authors,  neither  to  the  descriptions  furnished  of  the  condi 
tion  of  the  Chichimecas  north  of  the  Mexican  valley,  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  (Mot- 
olinia,  Trat.  Ill,  cap.  VII,  p.  185).  "Tuvieon  Senores  en  e*ta  tierra,  como  ahora  son  y 
estan  los  Espanoles,  porque  se  ensenorearon  de  la  tierra,  no  do  la  man  era.  que  los 
Espanoles." 

11  See  "  Zwoelf  Sprachen  aus  dem  Siidwesten  Nordamerikas,"  by  Albert  S.  Gatschet 


395 

While  thus  the  high  Mexican  tableland  especially  was  in  a  con 
dition  but  little  different  from  that  of  a  fertile  waste,  migrations 
were  in  progress  from  that  same  undefined  "  north,"  which  grad 
ually  carried  thither  tribes,  or  at  least  kindred  groups  detached 
from  tribes,  of  horticultural  sedentary  Indians.12  These  bodies 
moved  slowly,  and  independently  from  each  other,  and  they  settled 
down  at  last  in  the  beautiful  valley,  near  the  watersheets  in  its 
centre.  There  the}'  occupied  independent  territories  which  they  held 
as  their  own;13  and  while  they,  in  all  probability,  did  not  always 
maintain  friendly  relations  towards  each  other,  it  is  still  not  im 
probable  that,  owing  to  the  bond  of  common  stock-language,  they 

Weimar,  1877  (a  valuable  contribution  to  Linguistics  and  Ethnography).  Also  "  Lieut. 
G.  M.  Wheeler's  Zweite  Expedition  nach  Neu  Mexiko  und  Colorado,  1876,"  by  Oscar 
Loew  (in  Vol.  22  of  Dr.  Petermann's  "  Geographisehe  Mittheilungen,"  p.  209).  "The 
Spanish  Conquest  of  New  Mexico,"  by  W.  W.  H.  Davis,  1869.  The  sedentary  Indians 
occupying  the  most  limited  expanse,  and  being  also  inferior  in  numbers  to  the  roving 
bands  among  and  around  them. 

"These  facts  are  generally  acknowledged,  as  well  as  that  they  migrated  from  the 
North.  In  addition  to  the  authors  already  nained  in  the  course  of  this  and  of  our  pre 
vious  paper,  we  shall  merely  quote:  Gregorio  Garcia:  "El  Origen  de  los  Indios  del 
Nuevo  Mundo  e  Indias  Occidentales"  Madrid,  1729  (2nd  Edition,  Original  appeared  in, 
print  about  1(!06).  '•  New  Mexico  whence  came  the  seven  lineages,  which  peopled  New 
Spain  "  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  I,  p.  81),  (Lib.  X,  cap.  Ill,  p.  321).  "  Historia  de  la  Conquista  de 
la  Provineia  de  la  Nueva  Galicia,"  written  by  the  Licentiate  Don  Matias  de  la  Mota 
Padilla,  in  1742,  and  published  by  the  Geogr.  and  Stat.  Soc'y  of  Mexico  in  1870  (Cap. 
I,  p.  21).  /They  were  the  seven  tribes  of  "  Nahuatl"  stock,  the  community  of  language 
alone  being  sufficient  to  demonstrate  their  common  origin. 

13  All  the  older  authors  agree  in  stating  that  the  different  tribes  settled  independent 
of  each  other.  See  Motolinia  (''Hist,  de  los  Indios  de  Nueva  Espafia,"  in  Col:  de 
Docum  :  Vol.  I.  "  Epistola  proemial  ")  Sahagun  (Lib.  X,  cap.  XXIX,  p.  145).  "  Succes- 
ivamente  se  volvieron  los  Nahoas,  que  son  los  Tepanecas,  los  Acolhoaques,  los  Chalcas 
los  Vexotzincas,  y  los  Tlaxcaltecas,  cada  familia  por  si,  y  vinieron  a  estas  partes  de 
Mexico  .  .  .  .  y  asi  venidos  todos  a  estas  partes  y  tomada  la  posesion  de  las  tierras, 
y  puestas  las  mohoneras  entre  cada  familia."  Duran  ("  Hist :  de  las  Yndias"  (Cap.  II, 
p.  10).  "He  of  Xuchimilca  after  having  gone  around  the  entire  lagune,  was  pleased 
with  the  site  which  they  now  occupy,  settled  there  and  took  what  he  needed,  without 
damage  to  anybody  nor  any  contradiction  "  (p.  11).  The  Chalcas  settled  near  the  Xu- 
chimilcas  "  quietly  and  peaceably."  The  Tecpanecas  did  the  same,  also  the  Tezcucans 
and  the  remainder  (pp.  12, 13.  and  14).  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  Ill,  p.  456).  "  At  the  time 
these  nations  settled,  the  Chichimecas  made  no  show  of  opposition,  nor  resistance,  only 
they  became  estranged  and  like  unto  astonished  retired  into  the  rocky  fastnesses."  (It 
is  not  devoid  of  interest  to  connect  herewith  the  proper  assertions  of  Cortes  about  the 
utterances  of  Montezuma,  "  Carta  Segunda,"  p.  25,  in  Vol.  I  of  Vedia.)  Gomara  ("  Con 
quista  de  Mejico,"  p.  432,  etc.,  Vedia,  Vol.  I).  Fray  Geronimo  Mendieta  ("Hist,  eccle- 
siastica  Indiana,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXIV,  etc.)  Ixtlilxochitl  and  Torquemada  however, 
have  made  the  opinion  current,  that  all  these  tribes  settled  upon  Chichimecan  domain, 
and  were  assigned  to  special  territories  by  the  original  holder  of  the  entire  country. 
But  we  have  already  established  the  nature  of  Chichimecan  occupation  of  the  land,  and 
from  it  we  cannot  infer  that  any  title  was  held,  neither  that  any  could  be  given  to  new 


306 

sometimes  associated  (or  even  perhaps  confederated)  against  sur 
rounding  tribes.14 

These  settlers,  who  all  spoke  closely  related  dialects  of  the  same 
language  as  their  predecessors  the  Toltecs,  namely:  the  "  Nah- 
uatl"  or  good  sound,  were:  the  Aculhuans  or  Tezcucans,  the  Tec- 
panecas,  the  Xochimilcas,  and  the  Chalcas.  The  first  settled  on 
the  Eastern  shore  of  the  central  lagune,  the  second  to  the  west 
of  it,  while  the  two  last-named  tribes  clustered  around  the  fresh 
water  basins  of  the  southeast.  In  this  manner  the  valley  was 
eventually  mastered  again  by  sedentary  Indians,  who  held  at  bay 
the  surrounding  savages;  —  also  defending  it  from  neighbors  of 
their  own  stock  who,  occupying  at  the  same  time  contiguous  areas 
placed  under  different  geographical  conditions,  while  their  organ 
ization  and  plan  of  life  were  similar,  and  the  language  but  dhilecti- 
cally  varied;  —  still,  eventually,  became  their  most  inveterate 
enemies.15 

Although  quite  a  respectable  literature  has  arisen  on  the  subject 
of  the  organization,  customs  and  manners  of  these  u  Nahuatl "  tribes 
of  the  valley  of  Mexico,  this  literature  is  much  richer  in  facts  pur 
porting  to  be  historical  than  in  satisfactory  details  on  that  subject 
itself.  We  can  but  discern  among  the  confusions  and  contradic 
tions  (of  older  authors  particularly)  —  that  the  different  tribes  wore 
democratic  societies,  based  upon  consanguine  groups  as  units. 
Chiefs,  elected  by  the  people,  formed  their  governments,  whose  high 
est  authorities  were  the  councils.  The  Tezcucans  and  Tecpanecans 
seem  to  have  had  each  one,  the  Chalcas  two,  head  war-chiefs,  elected 
for  life.  In  regard  to  their  mode  of  holding  and  distributing  the 
soil  the  most  varied  statements  are  given,  most  of  these,  however, 
based  upon  the  assumption  of  monarchial  institutions,  and  even 
of  a  great  feudal  empire  with  Tezcuco  as  its  capital.  Both  of 

14  The  reports  about  a  preponderance  of  certain  tribes,  such  as  the  Tezcucans  or  the 
Tecpanecans,  resolve  themselves  into  a  result  of  intertribal  relations  in  the  valley 
of  Mexico.  We  need  but  consult  the  writings  of  Ixtlilxochitl  for  that  purpose.  (See 
"Hist,  des  Chichime'ques"  cap.  XI,  XII,  XIV,  and  XVI).  Toiquemada  (Lib.  I,  cap. 
XXXVII,  p.  62). 

18  For  a  history  of  the  different  tribes  composing  the  specifically  latest  Immigration 
of  "Nahuatl"  stock,  we  refer  to  all  the  older  authors  on  Mexican  topics.  Those  of  their 
kindred  who  settled  outside  of  the  valley  were  especially  the  Tlaxeallans.  The  rela 
tions  of  the  latter  to  the  valley-tribes  were  always  rather  unfriendly.  See  Torquemada 
(Lib.  Ill,  cap.  IX,  p.  258,  and  259.  Cap.  XI,  p.  264,  and  2(!5).  Duran  (Cap.  II,  p.  13). 
But  the  continuous  wars  between  Tlaxcallan  and  the  tribes  of  the  valley  commenced 
when  the  latter  began  to  extend  their  sway  under  the  leadership  of  the  Mexicans  (Ixt 
lilxochitl  "  Hist,  des  Chichimeques  "  cap.  XLI,  p.  292).  It  is  corroborated  by  the  state 
ments  of  the  Tlaxcaltecas  themselves  to  Cortes  ("  Carta  Segunda,"  p.  18,  Vedia,  Vol.  I). 


397 

these  assumptions  are  disproved  by  the  facts,  related  even  by  such 
authors  as  have  most  contributed  towards  fixing  them  upon  the 
public  mind  as  recognized  truths.16  We  need  hardly  say  here, 

16  In  regard  to  the  Tecpanecas,  Acosta  says  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  II,  p.  477) :  "  From  this 
it  may  be  interred,  that  among  them  the  King  exercised  no  absolute  command  and  rule, 
and  that  he  was  rather  a  consul,  or  Dux,  than  a  king."  He  further  compares  the  Tec 
panecas  with  the  "  reges"  of  ancient  Rome  (See  Morgan's  "  Ancient  Society,"  Part  II, 
cap.  XI,  p.  297).  The  council  was  supreme  among  the  Tecpanecans.  See  Tezozomoc 
("Cronica  Mexicana,"  Lord  Kingsborough,  Vol.  IX,  cap.  IV,  p.  11;  also  cap.  V,  p.  12, 
cap.  VI,  p.  13,  "  a  esto  respondio  el  rey  y  senado  Tecpaneca :  Digeronle :  mira  atempan- 
ecatl  (que  muy  bien  le  conocian)  bien  conozco  la  humillacion  y  sugecion  de  los  Mexi- 
canos ;  ya  es  por  demas,  porque  estan  alborotados,  y  corajudos  los  Tecpauecas :") 
Duran  (Cap.  VIII,  p.  64,  and  05). 

The  Xuchimilcas  were  governed  by  two  chiefs  (Tezozomoc,  cap.  XVI,  p.  25.  Duran, 
cap.  XII,  p.  104.  "Their  chiefs,  of  which  there  were  two,  one  of  the  chief-place  (•'  ca- 
becera"  rather  lineage)  of  Xuchimilco  called  Yacaxapotecutli,  and  the  other  from  the 
milpa  (this  is  to  be  interpreted  as  descendancy),  which  is  called  Pachimalcatltecutli,  and 
together  with  them  meeting  many  principals,  said") :  a  joint  meal  after  communal  style 
is  also  attributed  to  them  by  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XVI,  p.  26). 

The  Chalcas  also  had  two  chiefs:  (Duran,  cap.  XVI,  p.  13t,  Montezuma  Ilhuicamina 
said  to  Tlacaelel:  "  I  wish,  if  thou  agreed,  to  send  messengers  to  Chalco  to  the  chief 
of  Chalco  Quateotl  and  to  his  companion  Toteocitecutli  .  .  .  ."  —  Tezozomoc,  cap. 
XXII,  p.  33.  Cap.  XXIV,  p.  36.  Confirmed  by  the  action  of  Cortes  after  the  voluntary 
surrender  of  Chalco,  when  he  installed  two  chiefs.  Bernal  Diez  :  cap.  CXXXIX,  p.  154 
and  15.-),  Vedia,  II). 

With  the  Tezcucans  or  Aculhuns  there  appears  always  but  one  head-chief,  but  it  is 
equally  positive  that  the  office,  while  remaining  in  a  certain  kin,  was  elective  still.  The 
fact  is  interesting  and  requires  close  proof.  We  adduce  here,  in  a  general  way,  Saha- 
gim  (Lib.  VIII,  cap.  XXX.  "De  la  Manera  que  tuvieron  en  elegir  los  sefiores,"  p.  318,  of 
2d  Vol ):  Duran  (Cap.  LXIV,  p.  496).  "Montezuma  sent  his  messengers  to  Tezcuco, 
and  had  all  the  chiefs  of  that  city  and  kingdom  called  to  learn  from  them  whom  they 
were  inclined  to  elect  .  .  .  ."  (p.  497),  "  the  which  came,  electing  for  King  to  Quetzalac- 
xoyatzin,  Ne§aualpilli's  son  .  .  .  ."  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  CI  and  CII).  Ixtlilxochitl  con 
curs  ("Histoire  des  Chichimeques,"  cap.  LXXXVI).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XI,  cap. 
XXVII,  pp.  357,  358  and  359),  acknowledges  that,  while  the  choice  was  among  the  sons 
exclusively,  there  still  was  a  choice  left,  but  he  contradicts  the  statements  of  Juan 
Bautista  1'omar  (who  wrote  about  1582)  who  says,  that  this  choice  extended  to  the  en 
tire  kin  oi  the  deceased  head  chief.  Mendieta  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXVII,  p.  153).  "  Although 
the  Indians  of  this  New  Spain  inherited  the  chieftaincy  in  direct  lines,  they  took  great 
care  in  ascertaining  which  one  of  his  sons  had  to  succeed  to  him."  He  mentions  the 
succession  in  the  cases  of  Netzahualcoyotl  and  of  Xetzahualpilli,  each  of  whom  were 
respectively  followed  by  what  he  calls  an  illegitimate  offspring,  but  whose  mother  was 
a  Mexican  woman.  Veytia  (Cap.  XIV,  p.  367).  "  The  council  hardly  had  been  informed 
of  the  King's  death,  when  it  thought  proper  to  elect  a  successor,  after  the  manner  of  the 
Mexicans  .  .  .  ."  Carlos  Maria  de  Bustamante  ("Tezcoco  en  los  Ultimos  Tiempos  de 
BUS  antiguos  Reyes,"  Mexico,  1826.  Part  III,  cap.  IV,  pp.  218,  219  and  220).  Alonzo  de 
Zurita  ('•  Rapport  sur  les  differentes  classes  de  chefs  de  la  Nouvelle-Espagne  "  transla 
tion  by  Mr.  Ternaux-Compans,  p.  12).  "The  order  of  succession  varied  according  to 
the  provinces,  the  same  custom,  with  slight  differences,  prevailing  in  Mexico,  Tezcuco 
and  Tacuba." 

The  assumption  of  a  feudal  empire  at  Tezcuco  has  already  been  discussed.  It  was 
an  invention  of  chroniclers,  who  had  a  direct  interest,  or  thought  to  have  one,  in  ad 
vancing  the  claims  of  the  Tezcucan  tribe  to  an  original  supremacy.  Tribal  jealousy 
and  rivalry,  such  a  powerful  ally  of  the  Spaniards  during  the  conquest,  continued  to 
subsist  where  the  Spanish  domination  was  lully  established. 


398 

that  all  the  tribes  of  Mexico,  issuing  from  a  common  stock, 
speaking  the  "Nahuutl"  tongue,  and  living  under  the  same  geo 
graphical  influences,17  had  reached  an  almost  identical  state  of 
culture.  Therefore  the  result  of  our  investigations  of  the  landed 
tenure  among  the  Mexican  tribe  proper,  can  safely  be  assumed 
as  applicable  to  all  the  other  sedentary  tribes  of  (the  valley  of) 
Mexico.18 

While  thus  horticultural  tribes  had  secured  the  fertile  portions 
of  that  valle}^,  dividing  its  expanse  among  themselves,  and  sepa 
rated  by  unoccupied  "neutral"  soil,19  —  a  small  band  of  their  o\yn 
linguistical  relationship  was  moving  down  from  the  North,  and 
ultimately  made  its  appearance  in  their  midst.  Those  were  the 
Mexicans  proper,  also  called  "  Aztecas  Mexitin"  "  Aztlantlacas"  or 
"Mexico,." %o  This  band  was  composed  of  Seven  Kinships  "line 
ages,"  whose  chiefs  jointly  composed  the  government  of  the  whole, 
a  head  war-chief,  elected  for  life,  directed  their  movements,  but 


17 The  difference  between  the  valley  tribes  and  those  of  the  Tlaxcaltecan  mountain 
country,  is  not  even  very  great.  It  is  in  fact  but  apparent.  From  the  nature  of  the 
soil,  the  kinships  of  Tlaxcallan  were  more  scattered  in  location,  and  therefore  were 
apparently  democratic.  The  same  was  the  case  among  the  Niquirans  of  Nicaragua. 
See  Oviedo  (Lib.  XLII,  cap.  I,  pt .  37  and  38),  and  E.  G.  Squier.  (*•  Nicaragua,"  Vol.  II. 
"Aborigines  of  Nicaragua,"  cap.  II,  p.  340-348). 

18  Otherwise  the  confederacy,  on  equal  terms,  existing  between  the  valley-tribes  for 
more  than  a  century  previous  to  the  conquest,  and  of  which  we  shall  hereafter  treat, 
could  not  have  been  formed,  neither  could  it  have  subsisted.  The  fact,  however,  that 
all  the  old  chroniclers  mention  the  tribes  of  Mexico  under  one  common  head,  and  de 
scribe  their  customs,  as,  in  the  main,  identical, —  proves  that  we  can  safely  assume  the 
Mexicans  as  typical  in  that  respect.  Some  tribes  were  more  advanced  in  certain  me 
chanical  arts  than  others,— but  the  difference  was  merely  one  of  details,  and  not  of  or 
ganic  principles. 

18  See  "  Art  of  War,"  p.  135.  The  boundary  line  mentioned  by  Ixtlilxochitl  (Histoire 
des  Chichimeques,"  cap.  XXXIII,  p.  125),  and  also  by  Veytia  (Cap.  Ill  of  Book  III.  p.  1(»7 
of  3rd  volume)  if,  as  the  latter  asserts,  it  ever  really  existed,  did  not  divide  so  much  the 
territory  of  the  tribes,  but  rather  the  range  over  which  each  one  might  freely  extend, 
after  the  formation  of  the  confederacy.  Sr.  Veytia  contends  that  the  remnants  of  it  were 
still  visible  at  his  time,  and  carried  the  name  "  albarrada  de  los  indios." 

20  "  Art  of  War,"  p.  96,  note  1.  We  have  alluded  to  the  common  appellation  of  "  Chi- 
chimecas."  Sahagun  (Lib.  X,  cap.  XXIX,  p.  147),  says :  "  properly  they  call  themselves 
Atlacachichimeca',  or  fishermen  that  have  come  from  distant  lands."  This  would  be  a 
corroboration,  to  some  extent,  of  Torquemada's  assertion  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XI,  pp.  1)2  and 
93)  that  the  Mexicans  introduced  the  art  of  fishing  in  the  Mexican  valley.  We  cannot 
help  being  struck  by  the  preflxum,  "  Atlaca."  If  it  decomposes  into  "  Atl,"  water,  and 
"tlacatl,"  man,  it  assigns  to  the  Mexicans  an  original  abode  in  the  neighborhood  of  the 
sea,  or  ol  very  large  water-courses.  Tezozomoc,  in  his  first  chapter,  speaking  of  Aztlan, 
whence  the  Mexicans  are  said  to  have  emigrated,  and  from  which  word  the  name  of 
"Aztecs"  is  derived,  says:  "They  had  in  this  land  and  the  laguiies  thereof  .  .  .  ."  (p. 
5).  Aztlan  itself  means  "place  of  the  heron,"  which  is  an  aquatic  bird.  (See  also 
Veytia,  Lib.  II,  cap.  XII,  p.  91).  He  places  "  Aztlan  "  towards  the  extreme  north. 


399 

this  office  may  not  have,  at  that  time,  been  permanently  estab 
lished  ;21 —  only  temporarily,  for  emergency's  sake.22  It  is  barely 
possible  for  us  to  follow  the  migrations  of  the  Mexicans  with  any 
degree  of  certainty  ;  we  can  but  gather  from  the  various  and  varied 
reports  and  traditions,  that  being  horticultural  Indians,  fertile 
lands  were  sought  for  by  them,  and  only  when  they  reached  the 
lake-basin  did  they  begin  to  hope  for  realization  of  their  desires.23 
—  There  was  yet  much  unoccupied  space  around  the  lagunes,  still 
the  newcomers  were  hardly  welcome  to  the  other  occupants,  who 
harassed  them  so  long,  that  at  last  they  fled  into  the  marsh  or 
swamp  which  then  covered  the  area  subsequently  converted  into 
the  western  lagune  of  Mexico.24  Thus  they  retired  to  ground 
which  ivas  neither  held  nor  claimed  by  any  of  the  surrounding  tribes, 
and  on  the  few  solid  patches  protruding  above  the  morass,  they 
settled,  glad  to  have  escaped  pursuit  and  found  a  resting  place  on 

11  We  have  adopted  the  number  seven  for  these  kinships,  although  the  interpreter  of 
the  Mendoza  Codex  (Tab.  I,  of  Vol.  I,  Lord  Kingsborough)  says  there  were  ten.  -'El 
exercito  Mexicano  tubo  por  eaudillos  diez  personas  nombradas  .  .  .  ."  (Vol.  V,  p.  40). 
Duran  and  Tezozomoc  both  say  seven,  so  does  Veytia.  The  two  former  authors  even 
give  the  names  of  the  idols  which  each  of  these  seven  clusters  worshipped,  carrying 
it  along  on  their  migrations.  It  is  needless  here  to  prove  in  detail  the  democratic  na 
ture  of  these  seven  "  lineages."  Veytia,  for  instance  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XII  and  XIII),  quotes 
Chimalpain  as  authority,  and  although  he  assigns  to  the  Mexicans  a  leader  ("  caudillo  ") 
called  Huitziton,  he  still  implies  that  at  Chapultepec  only  "they,  emulating  the  other 
nations  there  located,  resolved  upon  electing  a  King  to  govern  them  "  (p.  109).  Duran 
(C;ip.  Ill,  p.  27).  Clavigero  mentions  an  "  Aristocratic"  organization  of  the  Mexicans 
until  the  year  1352.  "The  entire  nation  was  below  a  senate  or  conclave  of  the  most 
respected  persons,  distinguished  through  nobility  and  knowledge.  At  the  foundation 
of  Mexico  there  were  20  of  these"  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  I).  This  is  a  new  version.  .See  also 
Gregorio  Garcia  ("  Origen  de  los  Indies  "  Lib.  V,  cap.  III).  If  we  eliminate  the  mythi 
cal  Huitziton,  we  find  occasional  head  war-chiefs.  Veytia  even  assxires  us  that  after 
Mexico  was  founded,  they  elected  "  one  to  govern  them,  although  not  in  the  capacity 
of  a  King,  but  as  a  leader  or  captain"  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XVIII,  p.  159). 

22  xhc  regular  series  of  Mexican  head  war-chiefs  (•'  tlaca-tecuhtli  ")  commences  about 
the  middle  of  the  14th  century.    Previous  to  it,  the  office  appears  to  have  been  filled  by 
occasional  braves,  as  emergency  required.    Compare  Veytia  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XII  and  XIII, 
with  cap.  XV,  p.  131,  and  cap.  XVIII,  p.  159,  and  cap.  XXI,  p.  186  and  187).    Torquemada 
(Lib.  I,  cap.  Ill,  p.  83.    Cap.  IV,  p.  84.  Cap.  XII,  p.  95).    Mendieta  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXV, 
p.  148),  and  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  8,  p.  408  and  409),  etc.,  etc. 

23  Motolinia  (Trat.  Ill,  cap.  VII,  p.  180).    Duran  (Cap.  III).    Tezozomoc  (Cap.  I,  II 
and  III).    Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  4,  p.  459).    Garcia  ("Origen,  etc."  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  Ill, 
§  V,  p.  99  and  100.    "que  los  haria  Principes,  i  Senores  de  todas  los  Provincias,  que 
havian  poblado  las  otras  seis  naciones,  que  antes  en  ellos  havian  salido.") 

24  "  Art  of  War,  etc.,"  p.  87,  note  5.    Idem,  p.  150,  and  note  194, 185,  and  p.  151,  notes 
197  and  198.— L.  H.  Morgan  ("Ancient  Society,"  Part  II,  cap.  VII,  p.  190  and  191). 
Among  the  older  authors,  Mendieta  is  very  explicit  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXV,  p.  148). 
"  Y  eso  asiento  les  cuadrd  mucho  por  hallarlo  abundante  de  cazas  de  aves  y  pescados  y 
marisco  con  que  se  poder  sustentar  y  aprovechar  en  sus  granjerias  entre  los  pueblos 
comarcanos,  y  por  el  reparo  de  las  aguas  con  que  no  les  pudicseu  empecer  sus  vecinos." 


400 

soil  which  they  might  hold  as  their  own.125  It  would  appear  that, 
through  loss  of  numbers  in  the  course  of  their  migrations,  as  well 
as  through  divisions  among  themselves,  the  original  consanguine 
groups  composing  the  body,  had  been  reduced  to  Jive. 26  Now  a 
further  and  last  division  took  place,  one  of  these  kindred  clusters 
seceding  from  the  rest,  and  establishing  itself  apart  on  another 
sandy  expanse  where,  close  to  the  others  however,  it  grew  to  be 
come  the  tribe  of  Mexico-Tlatilulco.27  It  remained  independent 
until  about  forty  years  before  the  conquest.28 — The  other  four 
settled  each  one  by  itself,  but  still  acknowledging  a  common  gov 
ernment,  in  token  of  which  the  tribal  place  of  worship  was  erected 
at  the  spot  where  these  four  areas  met.  Thus  the  "pueblo"  of 
Mexico-Tenuchtitlan  was  founded  ;  the  seat  and  home  of  the  Mex 
icans  proper.29 

25  Ixtlilxochitl  ('•  Histoire  des  Chichimeques,"  cap.  X,  p.  72),  says  that  the  Mexicans 
"asked  the  King  of  Azcaputzalco  for  soil  "  (to  settle  upon).    Torquemada  represents 
their  settlement  as  a  flight  to  a  safe  place  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XI,  p.  92).    Also  Mendieta  (Lib. 
II,  cap.  XXXV,  pp.  147  and  148).    Dm  an  (Cap.  V,  p.  41),  has  the  remarkable  passage  fol 
lowing:  "  que  nun  el  suelo  no  era  suyo,  pues  era  sitio  y  termino  de  los  de  Azcaputzalco 
y  de  los  de  Tezcuco;  porque  alii  llegaban  los  terminos  del  uno  y  del  otro  pueblo,  y  por 
la  otra  parte  del  Mediodia,  teYminos  de  Culhuacan  :"    (Thin  shows  they  were  on  neutral 
ground,  dividing  the  tribes  of  their  surroundings.)    Tezozomoc  confirms  (Cap.  Ill,  p. 
9),  "estando  en  terminos  de  los  de  Atzcapuzalco,  Aculhuaques  Tezcucanos  y  los  de 
Culhuacan."    Duran  (2°  p.  41)  further  says  that  they  contended  to  be  masters  of  their 
soil,  without  owing  allegiance  or  obedience  to  any  one.    See  also  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  Ill) 
and  Motolinia  ("  Epistola  proemial,"  p.  5).    Gomara  ("  Couquista,"  p.  431.    Vedia,  1st 
volume). 

26  We  have  already  alluded  to  the  number  of  chiefs  leading  the  Mexicans  at  the  time 
of  their  settlement  in  ihe  lagune.    It  varies  from  lour  to  twenty.    But  the  fact  that  four 
"  quarters  "  composed  it  originally,  leads  me  to  the  belief  that  four  Mexican  kinships 
remained,  one  seceding  as  the  tribe  of  Tlatilulco.    This  division  into  four  is  the  only  fact 
reliably  ascertained.     (See  notes  27,  29,  30  and  31). 

27  This  fact  is  too  amply  proven  to  need  special  references.    How  it  occurred  we 
cannot  ascertain,  since  it  is  related  in  the  most  varied  manner  by  the  different  sources 
of  authority.    If  the  statement  is  correct  that  even  during  their  migrations,  the  Mex 
icans  proper  and  the  Tlatilulcas  kept  apart,  as  tribal  components,  or  probably  "phra- 
tries,"— then  the  fact  of  their  localizing  as  tribes  independent  from  each  other  is  easily 
accounted  for.    See  Veytia  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XV,  p.  135). 

28  The  date  of  its  conquest  by  the  Mexicans  is  about  1473  ("  Art  of  War,  etc."  p.  102). 
It  can  easily  be  verified  from  the  date  on  the  so-called  "calendar  stone  "  at  the  city  of 
Mexico.    (-See  "  Calendario  Azteca  "  by  Sefior  Chavero.) 

29  The  question  remains  yet  undecided  as  to  whether  these  four  "  quarters"  (•'  bar 
rios  ")  were  four  original  kinships,  or  whether  they  were  already  four  "  brotherhoods 
of  kinships  "  (phratries),  analogous  to  the  Roman  curia'  formed  by  (or  rather  remain 
ing  as  the  last  vestige  of)  original  kinships  disaggregated.    The  latter  might  appear 
likely  from  the  fact  of  the  greater  number  of  chiefs  (than  four),  mentioned  by  the  old 
authors.    The  existence  of  still  lesser  groups  is  plainly  acknowledged  at  the  same  time. 
Duran  says  (Cap.  V,p.  42):  "  On  the  night  after  the  Mexicans  finished  the  place  of  wor 
ship  (''hermita  donde  su  dios  estaba"),  a  large  area  of  the  lagune  being  filled  up  and 
room  made  for  the  houses,  Vitzilopochtli  spoke  to  his  priest  or  keeper  and  said  to  him : 


401 

Four  "quarters"  had  been  formed  by  the  localizing  of  four  re 
lationships  composing  them  respectivel}',  and  it  is  expressly  stated 
that  each  one  "might  build  in  its  quarter  (barrio)  as  it  liked."30 
The  term  for  these  relationships,  in  the  Nahuatl  tongue,  and  used 
among  all  the  tribes  speaking  it  was  :  u  Calpnlli."  It  is  also  used 
to  designate  a  great  hall  or  house,  and  we  may  therefore  infer  that, 
originally  at  least,  all  the  members  of  one  kinship  dwelt  under  one 
common  roof.3i  The  ground  thus  occupied  by  the  "Calpulli"  was 

"  Say  to  the  congregation  Mexican  that  the  chiefs,  each  one  with  his  relatives,  friends 
and  connections,  shall  divide  themselves  into  lour  principal  quarters,  my  house  being 
in  the  centre  among  them,  and  that  each  cluster  may  build  in  its  quarter  as  it  pleases." 
These  quarters  are  those  which  now  remain  in  Mexico,  that  is,  the  quarters  of  San  Pa 
blo,  of  San  Juan,  of  Santa  Maria  la  Redonda,  and  of  San  Sebastian.  Alter  the  Mexicans 
had  divided  into  these  four  places,  their  God  commanded  them  to  distribute  among  them 
selves  the  idols  ("los  dioses"),  and  that  each  quarter  should  name  and  designate  par 
ticular  quarters  where  these  particular  idols  should  be  worshipped.  Thus  each  quarter 
was  divided  into  many  small  ones,  according  to  th£  number  of  the  idols  called  Calpul- 
teona  (it  should  be  "  Calpulteoltzin "  composed  of  Calpulli-quarter,  and  teotl-god), 
which  signifies  god  of  the  quarter."  (See  Acosta,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  VII,  p.  4f>7.)  Tezozo- 
moc,  cap.  Ill,  p.  9,  "  y  siendo  de  noche  hicieron  junta  y  les  dijo  el  sacerdote  Quauhtlo- 
quetzqui:  hermanos,  ya  es  tiempo  que  os  dividais  tin  trecho  tinos  de  otros  en  cuatro 
partes  cercando  en  medio  el  templo  de  Huitzilopochtl',  y  nombrad  los  barrios  cada  una 
parte,  y  asi  concertados  para  dividirse  .  .  .  ."  Torquemada  confirms  these  statements 
(Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXIV,  p.  2!)5),  although  he  protests  against  the  origin  of  this  division. 
He  says  :  '-I  confess  it  to  be  truth  that  this  city  of  Mexico  is  divided  into  four  principal 
quarters,  each  one  of  which  contains  other  smaller  ones  included,  and  all,  in  common 
as  well  as  in  particular,  have  their  commanders  and  leaders  .  .  .  ."  He  further  says 
(Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545).  " These  clusters •("  parcialidades"  kinships;  were  distrib 
uted  by  calpules,  which  are  quarters  (•'  barrios"),  and  it  happened  that  one  of  these 
clusters  held  three,  four,  or  more  calpules,  according  to  the  number  of  its  people  .  . .  ." 
(We  shall  investigate  hereafter  the  objection  of  Torquemada).  The  same  author,  how 
ever,  acknowledges  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXII,  p.  288),  that  the  founders  of  Mexico  were  "nine 
families  .  .  .  These  families  commenced  the  foundation  of  this  illustrious  and  magnifi 
cent  city  .  .  .  ."  One  fact  results  beyond  all  doubt,  that  the  first  settlement  of  Mexico 
was  made  upon  the  basis  of  a  division  into  kinships  or  consanguine  groups,  localizing 
on-certain  areas,  which  jointly  composed  the  tribe.  That  the  government  was  demo 
cratic  has  already  been  established  previously. 

soDuran  (Cap.  V,  p.  42).  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  VII,  p.  467).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  Lib. 
II,  cap.  XI,  p.  til). 

31  Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LXVIII,  p.  104.  "  Estaba  de  ordinario,  recogido  en 
una  grande  Sala  (6  calpul)."  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXVII,  p.  305.  Lib.  IV,  cap.  XIX,  p.  39(5, 
(que  asi  Hainan  las  Salas  grandes  de  Comunidad.  li  de  Cabildo).  We  find,  under  the 
corrupted  name  of  "  Galpon,"  the  •'  calpulli"  in  Nicaragua  among  the  Niquiraus,  which 
speak  a  dialect  of  the  Mexican  (Nahuatl)  language.  See  E.  G.  Squier  (••  Nicaragua," 
Vol.  II,  p.  342.  "  The  council  houses  were  called  grepons,  surrounded  by  broad  corri 
dors  called  galpons,  beneath  which  the  arms  were  kept,  protected  by  a  guard  of  young 
men").  Mr.  Squier  evidently  bases  upon  Oviedo  ("  Hist,  general,"  Lib.  XLII,  cap.  Ill, 
p.  52.  "  Esta  casa  de  cabildo  llaman  galpon  .  .  .  ."  It  is  another  evidence  in  favor  of 
our  statements,  that  the  kinship  formed  the  original  unit  of  the  tribe,  and  at  the  same 
time  a  hint  that,  as  in  New  Mexico,  originally  an  entire  kin  inhabited  a  single  large 
house.  See  Molina's  Vocab.  (p.  11). 

REPORT  PEABODY  MUSEUM,  II.    26. 


402 

NOT,  as  Torquemada  admits,  assigned  to  it  by  a  higher  power ,3a  the 
tribal  government  itself  held  NO  DOMAIN  which  it  might  apportion 
among  subdivisions  or  to  individuals,  either  gratuitously  or  on 
condition  of  certain  prestations  ;  or  barter  against  a  consideration.33 
The  tribal  territory  was  distributed,  at  the  time  of  its  occupancy, 
into  possessory  rights  held  by  the  KINDRED  GROUPS  AS  SUCH,  by 
common  and  tacit  consent,  as  resulting  naturally  from  their  orga 
nization  and  state  of  culture.24 

The  patches  of  solid  ground,  on  which  these  "quarters"  settled, 
were  gradually  built  over  with  dwellings,  first  made  out  of  canes 
and  reeds,  and  latterty,  as  their  means  increased,  of  turf,  "adobe" 
and  light  stone.  These  houses  were  of  large  size,  since  it  is  stated 
that  even  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  u  there  were  seldom  less  than 
two,  four,  and  six  dwellers  in  one  house,  thus  there  were  infinite 
people  (in  the  pueblo)  since  as  there  was  no  other  way  of  provid 
ing  for  them,  many  aggregated  together  as  they  might  please." 
Communal  living,  as  the  idea  of  the  "calpulli"  implies,  seems, 
therefore,  to  have  prevailed  among  the  Mexicans  as  late  as  the 
period  of  their  greatest  power.35 

32  Torquemada  (lib.  II,  cap.  VIII,  p.  88,  and  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXIV,  p.  2!)5)  attributes 
the  division  into  ''quarters"  to  a  ''decree "of  the  Chiuhnnecan  "emperor"  Teehot- 
lalatzin.    But  his  assertions  are  disproved  in  part  by  his  own  statements,  in  part  by  the 
positive  reports  of  other  authors.    Admitting  even  that  the  said  Techotlalatzin  should 
have  wielded  the  discretionary  power  attributed  to  him,  although  there  is  btrong  evi 
dence  against  it,  he  would  have  ruled  after  the  foundation  of  Mexico.     (Clavigero, 
Lib.  II,  cap.  IX.    Vejtia,  Lib.  II,  cap.  XX.  p.  178.)    Consequently  after  the  settling  and 
localizing  of  the  four  quarters  mentioned  had  taken  place. 

33  The  division  into  "  quarters  "  is  everywhere  represented  as  resulting  from  common 
consent.    But  nowhere  is  it  stated  that  the  tribal  government  or  authority  assigned 
locations  to  any  of  its  fractions.    This  is  only  attributed  to  the  chiefs,  011  the  supposi 
tion  that  they,  although  elective,  were  still  hereditary  monarchs. 

34  There  is  no  evidence  of  any  tribute  or  prestation  due  by  the  quarters  to  the 
tribe.    The  custom  always  remained,  that  the  "  calpulli "  was  sovereign  within  its  limits. 
See  Alonzo  de  Zurita  ("Rapport  stir  les  diflerentes  <-la>.-es  de  chefs  de  la  Nouvelle- 
Espagne"  pp.  5M55).    Besides,  Ixtlilxochitl  says:  ("  Hist,  des  Chichim."  cap.  XXXV, 
p.  24-2),  "Other  fields  were  called  Calpolalli  or  Altepetlalli."     Now  calpnlalli  (from 
"  calpulli,"  quarter  or  kinship,  and  "  tlalli,"  soil),  means  soil  of  the  kin,  and  altepetlalli 
("  altepetl,"  tribe),  soil  of  the  tribe.    Clavigero  even  says  that  the  land:-,  called  "  altepet 
lalli,"  belonging  to  the  communities  "of  the  towns  and  villages,  were  divided  into  so 
many  parts,  as  there  were  quarters  in  the  town,  each  quarter  having  its  own,  irithout  the 
leant  connection  with  the  other."    (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XI V.)    This  indicates  plainly  that  the 
kinships  held  the  soil,  whereas  the  tribe  occupied  the  territorial  expanse.    The  domain, 
either  as  pertaining  to  a  ''Lord,"  or  to  a  "  State,"  was  unknown  among  the  Indians  in 
general.    Even  among  the  Peruvians,  who  were  more  advanced  than  the  Mexicans  in 
that  respect,  there  was  no  domain  of  the  tribe. 

:'"'  See  Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XI,  and  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXII).  Duran  (cap.  V).  The 
quotation  is  from  Herrera  (Dec.  II,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  X11I,  p.  190),  and  is  confirmed  by 
Torquemuda  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXIII,  p.  21)1),  and  especially  by  Gomara  ("  Conquista  de 


403 

The  soil  built  over  by  each  "calpulli"  probably  remained  for 
some  time  the  only  solid  expanse  held  by  the  Mexicans.  Gradually, 
however,  the  necessity  was  felt  for  an  increase  of  this  soil.  Remain 
ing  unmolested  "in  the  midst  of  canes  and  reeds,"  their  numbers 
had  augmented,  and  for  residence  as  well  as  for  food,  a  greater  area 
was  needed.  Fishing  and  hunting  no  longer  satisfied  a  people 
whose  original  propensities  were  horticultural ;  they  aspired  to  cul 
tivate  the  soil  as  they  had  once  been  accustomed  to,  and  after  the 
manner  of  the  kindred  tribes  surrounding  them.  For  this  purpose 
they  began  throwing  up  little  artificial  garden-beds,  "chinampas,"36 
on  which  they  planted  Indian  corn  and  perhaps  some  other  vegeta 
bles.  Such  plots  are  still  found,  as  "  floating  gardens,"  in  the 
vicinity  of  the  present  city  of  Mexico,  and  they  are  described,  as 
follows,  by  a  traveller  of  this  century : 

"  They  are  artificial  gardens,  about  fifty  or  sixty  yards  long,  and 
not  more  than  four  or  five  wide.  They  are  separated  by  ditches 
of  three  or  four  yards,  and  are  made  by  taking  the  soil  from  the 

Mejico,"  p.  443.  Vedia,  I).  "Many  married  people  ("  mnchos  casados")  live  in  one 
house,  either  on  account  of  the  brothers  and  relations  being  together,  as  they  do  not 
divide  their  grounds  (•«  heredades  "),  or  on  account  of  the  limited  space  of  the  pueblos ; 
although  the  pueblos  are  large,  and  even  the  houses."  Peter  Martyr  of  Angleria  ("De 
Novo  Orbe,"  translated  by  Itichard  Eden  and  Michael  Lok,  London,  1612.  Dec.  V,  cap. 
X,  p.  2-JS),  says:  "But  the  common  houses  themselves  as  hygh  as  a  niannes  Girdle, 
were  also  built  of  stone,  by  reason  of  the  swellyng  of  the  lake  through  the  floode,  or 
washing  note  of  the  Ry  vers  fallying  into  it.  Vpon  those  greate  foundations,  they  biiilde 
the  reste  of  the  house,  with  Bricke  dryed,  or  burned  in  the  sunne,  intermingled  with 
Beanies  of  rymber,  and  the  common  houses  have  but  one  floore  or  planchin."  We 
are  forcibly  reminded  here  of  the  houses  of  Itza  on  Lake  Peten,  which  were  found  in 
1<>95.  "  Hist,  de  la  Oonq.  de  los  Itzaex,"  Lib.  VIII,  cap.  XII.  p.  494."  ''It  was  all  tilled 
with  houses,  some  with  stone  walls  more  than  one  rod  high,  and  higher  up  of  wood,  and 
the  roofs  of  straw,  and  some  only  of  wood  and  straw.  There  lived  in  them  all  the  In 
habitants  of  the  Island  brutally  together,  one  relationship  occupying  a  single  house." 
See  also  the  highly  valuable  Introduction  to  the  second  Dialogue  of  Cervantes-Salazar 
("  Mexico  in  1554")  by  my  excellent  friend  Sr.  Icazbalceta  (pp.  73  and  74). 

36  "  Chinampa,"  derives  from  "  Chinamitl."  "  Seta  o  cerca  de  canas,"  (enclosure  of 
canes  or  reeds).  Molina  '•  Vocabulario",  Parte  II,  p.  21).  This  mode  of  enclosing  the 
ground  was  very  common  in  the  valley.  A  cluster  of  settlements  between  Churubusco 
and  the  Eastern  lagoon  lias  even  obtained  from  it  the  name  of  "Chinampanecas  (fre 
quently  mentioned  in  Tezozomoc  and  Duran.)  The  word  "  Chinamitl  "has  been  adopted 
by  the  Qquiche  of  Guatemala,  changed  into  "Chinamit,"  and  used  to  designate  a 
kinship.  (See  "  Popol-Vuh.,  pp.  301.  30*,  806,  where  "  Chinamit  "  is  translated  as  family.) 
Even  in  those  remote  regions  where  the  territories  of  Yucatan  and  Guatemala  join,  or 
rather  merge  into  each  other,  around  Lake  Peten,  where  the  Nahuatl  language  is  hardly 
known,  we  iind  in  the  17th  and  18th  century,  a  tribe  of  "  Chinamitas,"  who  are  said  to 
have  inhabited  an  area  surrounded  by  Mexican  agaves  ("Magueyes  ")  as  a  defensive 
hedge.  ("Hist,  de  la  Couq.  de  los  Itzaex,"  Lib.  VIII,  cap.  XI,  pp.  490-493.)  It  shows 
that  the  original  signilication  of  the  word,  at  least,  was  connected  with  the  notion  of  a 
family -lot. 


404 

intervening  ditch,  and  throwing  it  on  the  chinarnpa,  by  which 
means  the  ground  is  raised  generally  about  a  yard,  and  thus  forms 
a  small  fertile  garden,  covered  with  the  finest  culinary  vegetables, 

fruits  and  flowers "37 

Each  consanguine  relationship  thus  gradually  surrounded  the 
surface  on  which  it  dwelt  with  a  number  of  garden  plots  suf 
ficient  to  the  wants  of  its  members.38  The  aggregate  area 
thereof,  including  the  abodes,  formed  the  "  calpullalli" — soil  of 
the  "calpulli,"  39  and  ivas  held  by  it  as  a  unit;  the  single  tracts, 
however,  being  tilled  and  used  for  the  benefit  of  the  single  fam 
ilies.^  The  mode  of  tenure  of  land  among  the  Mexicans  at  that 
period  was  therefore  very  simple.  The  tribe  claimed  its  territory, 
"ALTEPETLALLI,"  an  undefined  expanse  over  which  it  might  extend, 
—  the  "  calpules,"  however,  held  and  possessed  ivithin  that  territory 
such  portions  of  it  as  were  productive;  each  "  calpulli "  being 
sovereign  within  its  limits,  and  assigning  to  its  individual  members 
for  their  use  the  minor  tracts  into  which  the  soil  was  parcelled  in 
consequence  of  their  mode  of  cultivation.  If,  therefore,  the  terms 
"  altepetlalli"  and  "calpulalli"  are  occasionally  regarded  as 
identical,  it  is  because  the  former  indicates  the  occupancy,  the 
latter  the  distribution  of  tne  soil  41  We  thus  recognize  in  the  cal 
pulli,  or  kindred  group,  the  unit  of  tenure  of  whatever  soil  the 
Mexicans  deemed  worthy  of  definite  possession.  Further  on  we 

37  '•  Six  Months  Residence  and  Travels  in  Mexico,"  by  W.  Bullock.    London,  1824. 
Cap.  XIII,  p.  179.    It  is  not  devoid  of  interest  to  compare  the  descriptions  of  this  rather 
superficial,  though  still  truthful  observer,  Avith  the  account  of  the  ancient  Chinampas 
as  preserved  to  us  in  Tezozomoc  (cap.  Ill,  p.  9).    Duran  (cap.  VI,  pp.  50  and  51).    The 
floats  or  rafts  mentioned  by  these  old  authors  were  nothing  else  but  the  chinampas  or 
"  floating  gardens."    Therefore  also  Tezozomoc  uses  the  term  '"  camellon,"  or  garden- 
bed.    (.See  also  Acosta,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  IX,  p.  472.)    Torquemada  (Lib.  XIII,  cap.  XXXII, 
p.  483).    Veytia  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XV,  p.  142). 

38  Duran  (Cap.  V).    Tezozomoc  (Cap.  Ill,  p.  8).    Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  IX,  p.  473). 
Torquemada  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXXIII,  p.  291.    Lib.  II,  cap.  XV,  p.  101).    Clavigero  (Lib. 
II,  cap.  XVII). 

s"  Alonzo  de  Zurita  (p.  51).  Ixtlilxochitl  ("  Hist,  des  Chichim,"  cap.  XXXV,  p.  242). 
Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545).  Bustamunte  ("Tezcoco  en  los  ultimos  Tiem- 
pos  de  sus  antiguas  Reyes,"  p.  232;. 

40  Zurita  (•'  Rapport,  etc.,"  pp.  52,  56,  57,  60). — De  1'Ordre  de  Succession  observe  par 
les  Indiens,  etc.,  etc.  (copy  of  an  anonymous  MSS.  from  Simancas,  contained  in  the 
Uguina  collection,  and  translated  by  Mr.  Teruaux-Compans  in  his  "Recueil  de  pieces, 
etc.,  pp.  -2-2:J  and  224.) 

«  Zurita  (•'  Rapport,  etc.,"  pp.  51-84).  Hen-era  (Dec.  Ill,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  XVII,  p.  138). 
Ramirez  de  Fuenleal,  Bishop  of  San  Domingo  (Letter  of  3  Nov.,  1532,  Mexico,  to  the 
Emperor  Charles  V.  <•  Recueil  "  of  Ternaux,  p.  253).  See  also  the  Introduction  to  the 
"  Real  Ejecutoria  de  S.  M.  sobre  Tierras  y  Reservas  de  Pechos  y  Paga.  IVrteneeiente 
a  los  Caciques  da  Axapusco,"  in  "  Col.  de  Doc."  of  Icazbalceta  (Vol.  II,  p.  XI11). 


405 

shall  investigate  how  far  individuals,  as  members  of  this  commu 
nal  unit,  participated  in  the  aggregate  tenure. 

In  the  course  of  time,  as  the  population  further  increased, 
segmentation  occurred  within  the  four  original  "quarters;"  new 
u  calpulli,"  being  formed.42  For  governmental  purposes  this  seg 
mentation  produced  a  new  result  by  leaving,  more  particularly  in 
military  affairs,  the  first  four  clusters  as  great  subdivisions.43  But 
these,  as  soon  as  they  had  disaggregated,  ceased  to  be  any  longer 
units  of  territorial  possession,  their  original  areas  being  held  there 
after  by  the  "minor  quarters"  (as  Herrera,  for  instance,  calls  them), 
who  exercised,  each  one  within  its  limits,  the  same  sovereignty 
which  the  original  "  calpulli"  formerly  held  over  the  whole.44  A 
further  consequence  of  this  disaggregation  was  (by  removing  the 
tribal  council  farther  from  the  calpules)  the  necessity  for  an  official 
building,  exclusively  devoted  to  the  business  of  the  whole  tribe 
alone.45 

42 This  successive  formation  of  new  "calpulli"  is  nowhere  explicitly  stated, but  it  is 
implied  by  the  passage  of  Duran  which  we  have  already  quoted  (Cap.  V,  p.  42).  It  also 
results  from  their  military  organization  as  described  in  the  "Art  of  War,"  (p.  115). 
With  the  increase  of  population,  the  original  kinships  necessarily  disaggregated 
further,  as  we  have  seen  it  to  have  occurred  among  the  Qqniche  (See  "Popol-Vuh" 
quoted  in  our  note  7),  forming  smaller  groups  of  consanguinei.  After  the  successful 
war  against  the  Tecpanecas,  of  which  we  shall  speak  hereafter,  we  find  at  least 
twenty  chiefs,  representing  as  many  kins  (Duran,  cap.  XI.  p.  97),  besides  three  more, 
adopted  then  from  those  of  Culhuacan  (Id.  pp.  98  and  99).  This  indicates  an  increase. 

«"  Art  of  War,  etc.,"  pp.  115  and  120. 

"Torquemadn  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXIV,  p.  295).  "I  confess  it  to  be  truth  that  this  city 
of  Mexico  is  divided  into  four  principal  quarters,  each  one  of  which  contains  others, 
smaller  ones,  included,  and  all,  in  common  as*  well  as  in  particular,  have  their  com 
manders  and  leaders  .  .  .  ."  Zurita  ("  Rapport,"  p.  58-64).  That  the  smaller  subdivis 
ions  were  those  who  held  the  soil,  and  not  the  four  original  groups,  must  be  inferred 
from  the  fact,  that  the  ground  was  attached  to  the  calpulli.  Says  Zurita  (p.  51.) 
"They  (the  lands)  do  not  belong  to  each  'inhabitant  of  the  village,  but  to  the  calpulli 
which  possesses  them  in  common."  On  the  other  hand  Torquemada  states  (Lib.  XIV, 
cap.  VII,  p.  545) :  "  that  in  each  pueblo,  according  to  the  number  of  people,  there  should 
be  (were)  clusters  ("  parcialidades")  of  diverse  people  and  families  ....  These  clus 
ters  were  distributed  by  calpules,  which  are  quarters  ("  barrios  "),  and  it  happened  that 
one  of  the  aforesaid  clusters  sometimes  contained  three,  four,  and  more,  calpules,  ac 
cording  to  the  population  of  the  place  ("pueblo")  or  tribe."  The  same  author  further 
affirms  :  "  These  quarters,  and  streets,  were  all  assorted  and  levelled,  with  so  much  accu 
racy,  that  those  of  one  quarter  or  street  could  not  take  a  palm  of  land  from  those  of  an 
other,  and  the  same  was  with  the  streets,  their  lots  running  (being  scattered)  all  over 
the  pueblo."  Consequently,  there  were  no  communal  lands  allotted  to  the  four  great 
quarters  of  Mexico  as  such,  but  each  one  of  the  kinships  (calpules)  held  its  part  of 
the  original  aggregate.  Compare  Gomara  (Vedia,  Vol.  I,  "  Conq.  de  Mejico,"  p.  434. 
"Among  tributaries  it  is  a  custom,  etc.,  etc."  Also  p.  440).  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap. 
XIV).  "  Each  quarter  has  its  own  tract,  without  the  least  connection  with  the  others." 

«  Compare  Duran  (Cap.  XI,  p.  87^.  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XXXI,  p.  470).  It  appears 
as  if  the  utecpan"  had  not  been  constructed  previous  to  the  middle  of  the  14th  cen- 


406 

This  building  was  the  "tecpan"46  called,  even  by  Torquemada 
"  house  of  the  community;"47  it  was,  therefore,  since  the  council 
of  chiefs  was  the  highest  authority  in  the  government,  the  "  council 
house''  proper.  It  was  erected  near  the  centre  of  the  "pueblo," 
and  fronting  the  open  space  reserved  for  public  celebrations. 
But,  whereas  formerly  occasional,  gradually  merging  into  regular, 
meetings  of  the  chiefs  were  sufficient,  constant  daily  attendance 
at  the  utecpan"  became  required,  even  to  such  an  extent,  that  a 
permanent  residence  of  the  head-chiefs  there,  resulted  from  it,  and 
was  one  of  the  duties  of  the  office.  Consequently  the  u  tlaca- 
tecuhtli,"  his  family,  and  such  assistants  as  he  needed  (like 
runners),  dwelt  at  the  "official  house."  But  this  occupancy  was 
in  no  manner  connected  with  a  possessory  right  by  the  occu 
pant,  whose  family  relinquished  the  abode,  as  soon  as  the  time  of 
office  expired  through  death  of  its  incumbent.  The  "teepan" 
was  occupied  by  the  head  war-chiefs  only  as  long  as  they  exercised 
the  functions  of  that  office.48 


tnry,—  the  meetings  of  the  tribe  being  previously  called  together  by  priests,  and  prob 
ably  in  the  open  space  around  the  main  house  of  worship.  The  fact  of  the  priests 
calling  the  public  meetings  is  proved  by  Duran  (Cap.  IV,  p.  42).  Aeosta  (Lib.  VII, 
cap.  VII,  p.  4(38).  Veytia  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XVIII.  pp.  15(i,  159.  Cap.  XXI,  p.  180).  Acosta 
first  mentions  "unos  palacios,  niinque  harto  pobres."  (Lib.  VIE,  cap.  8,  p.  470),  on  the 
occasion  of  the  election  of  the  first  regular  "  tlacatecuhtli :"  Acamapichtli,  —  Torque- 
mada  says  (Lib.  XII,  cap.  XXII,  p.  290),  that  they  lived  in  miserable  huts  of  reeds  and 
straw,  erected  around  the  open  space  where  the  altar  or  place  of  worship  of  Huitzil- 
opochtli  was  built.  The  public  building  was  certainly  their  latest  kind  of  construction. 
46 From  "tecuhtli"  chief,  and  the  aflSxum  "p;m,"  denoting  a  place.  Therefore 
"place  of  the  chiefs."  Molina  translates:  "  casa  6  palacio  real.  6  de  algun  seiior  de 
Salno  "  (II,  p.  93).  The  word  is  also  found  in  the  Qquiche  of  the  "  Popol-Vuh  "  (p.  306). 
"Qui  ticpan  quib"  — Mr.  E.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  acknowledges  the  Mexican 
origin  of  the  word,  and  renders  it  by  "to  divide  into  quarters,"  although  he  says  that 
in  Mexican  it  signifies  :  palace  or  municipality. 

47  Torquemada  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XIV,  pp.  2(59  and  270).    "  Tecpancalli,  que  quiere  decir, 
los  Palacios  Reales,  6  el  Alca$ar,  y  casas  de  Senorio"  (Id  :  Lib.  VII,  cap.  XXI  p.  119. 
Lib.  XIII,  cap.  XXX,  p.  477).    But  especially  in  the  Sixth  Book,  27th  chapter,  page  48, 
when,  referring  to  the  statements  of  Father  Bernardino  de  Sahagun  who  says,  that 

"  being  in  the  city  of  Xuchirnilco,  he  heard  one  night,  etc.  etc and  that  inquiring 

next  day  why  that  shouting  had  taken  place.— the  Indians  answered,  that  from  the 
Teepan,  or  community  (municipal  house),  they  had  been  calling  the  macehuales  to 
work." 

48  Nearly  every  author  who  attempts  to  describe  minutely  the  "chief-house  "(teepan) 
mentions  it  as  containing  great  halls  (council-rooms).    See  the  description  of  the  teepan 
of  Tezcuco  by  Ixtlilxochitl  ("Hist,  des  Chichimoques,"  cap.  XXXVI,  p.  247.    "The 
palace  had  two  courts,  the  first  and  largest  one  serving  as  public  square  and  market, 
for  which  it  is  still  used  at  present.    The  second  and  interior  one,  was  surrounded  by 
the  hall  of  the  royal  councils,  where  the  King  held  two  tribunals.    In  the  centre  of  this 
court  a  large  brasier  was  burning,  which  was  never  extinguished."    Id.  cap.  XXXVIII), 
by  Torquemada  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXVli,  p.  30o.    Lib.  II,  cap.  XLIV,  pp.  140  and  147.    Lib. 


407 

About  the  time  these  changes  occurred,  the  dignity  of  "  tlaca- 
tecuhtli"  seems  to  have  become  a  permanent  feature  in  the  govern- 

XF,  cap.  XXVI,  pp.  354  and  355).  Cortes  himself  (Vedia,  I,  carta  segunda,  pp.  34  and  35), 
speaks  of  the  great  halls  contained  in  what  he  calls  the  "  house  of  Muteczuma."  Bernal- 
Diez  del  Castillo  (Vedia  II,  cap.  XCI,  pp.  86  and  87),  confirms.  See  also  Gomara  (Vedia, 
J,  p.  342  and  343.  "  Adonde  el  moraba  y  residia  a  la  continua,  Hainan  Tepac,  qne  es  como 

decir  palacio —  .  .  .  habia  en  el  mnchas  salas.")  Sahagun  (Lib.  VIII,  cap. 

XIV,  p.  302.  "El  palacio  de  los  Senores  6  casas  reales,  tenia  muchas  salas.")  The 
tecpan  was  near  the  centre  of  the  pueblo.  See  Gomara  (Vedia  I,  p.  341.  "  Llegaron 
pues  a  un  patio  grande,  recamera  de  los  idolos,  que  ftie  casas  de  Axaiaca.")  Cortes 
(Vedia,  I,  •'  Carta  Tercera,"  pp.  74  and  7(5,  etc.). 

Bernal-Diez  (Vedia,  II,  cap.  LXXXVIII,  p.  84,  etc.).  According  to  Sr.  Icazbalceta 
("Mexico  in  1554.  note  38,  p.  182,  to  the  2d  Dialogue  of  Cervantes-Salazar),  the  "old 
houses  of  Montezuma"  occupied  (about)  the  square  west  of  the  present  site  of  the 
Cathedral.  The  •«  new  houses  "  were  in  place  of  where  the  National  palace  now  stands. 
It  is  admitted  that  the  Cathedral  occupies  the  site  of  the  main  "  teocalli,"  or  the 
old  centre  of  tiie  ancient  pueblo.  (Torquemada,  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XXII,  p.  290).  The  cor- 
rectness  of  this  is  conclusively  proven  by  Sr.  Icazbalceta  in  note  40,  to  the  Second 
Dialogue  of  Cervantes  (p.  194,  and  plate  on  p.  197,  also  the  important  dissertation  on 
page  201),  and  in  note  51.  Thus  the  central  location  of  the  tecpan  at  Mexico  remains 
established. 

The  permanent  residence  of  the  head  war-chief,  of  his  household,  and  of  some 
assistants, —  at  the  tecpan,  is  too  frequently  related  to  demand  further  proof,  but  it  is 
not  superfluous  here  to  investigate  the  point:  that  this  residence  was  connected,— not 
with  the  person  and  descendancy  of  that  chief,  but  with  the  office  alone. 

We  find  it  mentioned  that  the  buildings  occupied  by  the  Spaniards,  when  they  first 
came  to  the  pueblo  of  Mexico  were  the  "house  of  the  father  of  Montezuma"  (Axay- 
acatzin,  probably).  All  the  eye-witnesses  concur  in  it  and  we  need  not  refer  to  them 
in  detail.  There  was,  consequently,  a  house  where  the  kinship  of  the  chief  liced, — 
aside  from  the  tecpan,  for  since  descent  with  the  Mexicans  was  in  the  male  line, —  the 
son  continued  to  occupy  the  dwellings  of  his  father  and  cwith  communal  living  as 
practised  in  Mexico),  of  that  father's  consanguine  relations.  (That  these  sons  and  de 
scendants  were  bred  up  to  the  ordinary  pursuits  of  life,  like  any  other  Indian  of  Mex 
ico,  results  from  the  speech  as  reported  by  Sahagun  (Lib.  V,  cap.  XV),  of  an  old  chief 
to  his  sons,  wherein  he  exhorts  them  to  cultivate  the  mechanical  arts,  and  agriculture, 
adding  the  remarkable  words,  p.  117,  "  nowhere  have  I  seen  that  any  one  may  maintain 
himself  through  his  noble  descendancy  alone.")  In  the  case  of  Ahuitzotl,  Duran  relates 
(Cap.  XLI,  p.  327),  "  all  the  chief  and  principal  men,  with  the  whole  tribe,  going  to  the 
place  where  the  sons  of  the  Kings  and  great  men  were  kept  ("  recogidos"),  and  where 
they  instructed  and  furthered  them  in  virtuous  things,  in  the  use  of  arms  and  good 
manners.  Then  they  took  out  (Ahuitzotl)  from  the  others,  and  brought  him  to  the 
royal  palace."  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  LX,  p.  100),  speaking  of  the  election  of  Ahuitzotl 
says:  "and  these  twelve  Mexican  chiefs  went  to  bring  the  King  Ahuitzotl  from  the 
house  of  Tilancalco."  "  And  they  said  nothing  to  him  until  they  were  in  the  great 
palace"  (Cap.  LXI,  p.  100).  The  election  of  Montezuma,  however,  gives  occasion  to 
that  author,  for  another  and  very  important  statement  (Cap.  LXXXII,  p.  143).  "  For, 
know  ye,  that  many  of  the  sons  of  the  Kin^s  past,  are  brought  up  now,  some  of  which 
have  become  singers,  others  Cuachimecs,  others  Otomies,  and  the  others  are  preparing 
to  assume  your  titles  of  Tlacatecatl,  Tlacochcalcatl,  Ticocyahuacatl,  Acolnahuacatl, 
Hezhuahuaeatl,  and  a  number  of  others  who  are  and  dwell  in  the  principal  house  Cal- 
mecac."  It  is  further  exposed,  how  unwise  it  would  be  to  elect  an  unmarried  man,  and 
finally  Montezuma  was  chosen,  whose  age  at  that  time  is  given  at  thirty-four  years,  and 
he  was  taken  out  of  the  Calmecac  and  escorted  to  the  chief  house  (tecpan).  But  the 
strongest  evidence  results  from  the  fact  that  the  office  was  elective,  and  not  hereditary. 
How,  while  the  incumbent  of  an  office  changed,  could  the  family  of  his  predecessor 
still  remain  in  possession  of  the  official  building? 


408 

ment  of  the  Mexican  tribe.49  Nearly  at  the  same  time  also,  the 
Mexicans  felt  the  necessity  of  opening  communications  with  the 
tribes  inhabiting  the  shores  of  the  great  marsh  in  the  midst  of 
which  they  were  living,  —  in  order  to  obtain  some  of  the  commodi 
ties  produced  or  held  by  these  tribes.  Strong  enough  for  defence, 
but  too  weak  yet  for  offence,  the  Mexicans  approached  cautiously 
their  nearest  and  most  powerful  neighbors,  the  Tecpanecas,  with 
the  view  of  securing  permission  to  trade  and  barter,  also  for  the 
purpose  of  obtaining  the  use  of  one  of  the  springs  of  the  main 
land.  This  permission  was  granted,  on  condition  that  the  Mexi 
cans  should  pay  a  certain  tribute.  This  was,  however,  no  kind  of 
feudal  prestation,  not  being  in  the  least  connected  with  the  tenure 
of  the  soil  or  occupancy  of  the  territory, —  but  simply  like  unto  a 
toll  or  tax  placed  on  the  faculty  of  barter.  The  further  condition 
of  military  assistance  being,  in  all  likelihood,  also  exacted,  the 
Mexicans  thus  became,  not  the  subjects  as  it  is  commonly  stated, 
but  the  weaker  allies  of  the  Tecpanecas.50 

49  We  have  previously  alluded  (note  22),  to  the  fact  that,  anterior  to  Acamapitzin, 
the  series  of  Mexican  head-chiefs  appear  broken,  whereas  from  the  latter  onward  the 
office  is  reported  as  having  been  regularly  filled.  From  that  time  on  the  term  "  palacio," 
as  connected  with  the  office,  appears  in  the  Spanish  historians.  See  Duran,  Tezozomoc, 
Aeosta  and  Torquemada.  (Especially  "  Monarchia  Indiana,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  XIV,  p.  98). 

50A11  the  authors  agree  upon  the  fact  that  the  early  life  of  the  Mexican  tribe  on  the  site 
of  Tenuc-htitlan  was  one  of  secluded  poverty,  even  of  misery.  See  especially  Torque 
mada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XI.  pp.  92  and  93).  "In  this  place  they  settled  ("se  ranchearon  ") 
erecting  poor  and  small  habitations,  surrounded  by  canes  and  grasses,  called  by  them 
Xacnlli,  .  .  .  where  they  spent  their  life  miserably,  the  place  being  poor  and  destitute, 
and  as  people  abandoned  and  poor,  persecuted  by  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  mainland, 
they  subsisted  upon  roots  of  Tulli  and  other  herbs,  which  grew  on  the  place  and  on  its 
surroundings."  Then  they  began  to  fish.  (See  also  Tezozomoc,  cap.  III.  Duran,  cap. 
V.  Clavigero,  Lib.  II,  cap.  XVII.  Sahagun,  Lib.  X,  cap  XXIX,  pp.  145  and  Hfi.  Veytia, 
Lib.  II,  cap.  XV,  p.  142).  Duran  and  Tezozomoc  both  assert,  that  their  first  step,  when 
the  population  began  to  increase,  was  to  seek  for  traffic,  which  could  only  be  secured 
through  some  kind  of  connection  with  their  nearest  and  most  warlike  neighbors,  which 
at  that  time  were  the  Tecpanecas.  ("Hist,  de  las  Yndias  de  Nueva  Espaua,"  cap.  V, 
pp.41  and  42.  "Empero  juntandose  todos  en  consejo  ovoalguuos  que  fueron  de  pareccr 
que con  inucha  omildad  se  fuesen  a  los  de  Azcaputzalco  y  a  los  Tepanecas,  que  son  los 
de  Cuyuacan  y  Tacuba,  y  que  se  les  ofreciesen  y  diesen  por  amigos  y  se  les  subjeta-cn 
con  intencion  de  pedillespiedray  madera  para  el  edificiodesu  cindad  .  .  .  ."  ''Cronica 
Mexicana,"eap.  Ill,  p.  9.  It  was  finally  agreed  to  barter,  with  as  little  concession  as 
possible  on  their  part).  Most  of  the  other  authors  have  transformed  this  alliance  with 
the  Tecpanecas  into  a  feudal  allegiance,  resulting  from  the  occupation  of  the  soil  and 
from  intermarriage.  Both  are  disproved  by  Duran  (Cap.  V,  p.  41 :  "  pues  era  sitio  y  ter- 
niino  de  los  de  Azcaputzalco  y  de  los  de  Tezcuco;  porque  alii  llegaban  los  terminos 
del  uno  y  del  otro  pueblo,  y  por  la  otra  parte  del  mediodia,  terminos  de  Culhuacan  ;  .  ." 
"  y  que  como  seiiores  ya  de  aquel  sitio,  sin  hacer  buz  ni  reconocer  subjecion  a  ninguno, 
pues  su  dios  los  auia  dado  aquel  sitio,  fuesen  y  comprasen  piedra  y  madera,  etc.,  etc.") 
and  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  Ill,  pp.  9  and  10). 

Even  Torquemada  acknowledges  the  fact,  that  the  Mexicans  were  originally  inde 
pendent  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XI),  and  that  they  were  connected  with  the  Tecpanecas  through  trib- 


409 

Through  the  establishment  of  direct  relations  with  the  outside, 
not  only  the  public  business  of  the  Mexicans  was  increased,  but, 
for  the  interchange  of  commodities,  a  standing  market  became 
indispensable.  The  pueblo  of  Mexico,  formerly  shunned  by  stran 
gers,  was  now  visited  by  delegations  from  neighboring  tribes, 
and  especially  by  traders.  Indian  hospitality  required  that  these 
visitors  should  be  harbored  as  guests,  and  the  official  house  of  the 
tribe  was  the  place  where  this  hospitality  was  afforded  ;  it  being 
the  duty  of  those  who  occupied  it  to  lodge  and  feed  the  strangers.51 

lite  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XV,  p.  99),  a  statement  flatly  contradictory.  In  his  previous  descrip 
tion  of  the  early  conditions  of  the  tribes,  he  represents  the  Mexicans  as  outcasts,  upon 
•which  no  other  tribe  had  any  claim  (pp.  92  and  93).  No  attempt  was  made  to  conquer 
them,  since  their  retreat  was  too  impenetrable  (Torquemada,  Lib.  II,  cap.  XI,  p.  93.  Men- 
dieta.  Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXIV,  p.  146),— therefore  their  intercourse  with  the  tribes  of  the 
mainland  was  voluntary  (Acosta,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  VII,  p.  4(57),  and  necessarily  took  the 
form  of  alliance  or  league.  In  this  case  military  assistance  was  the  main  point.  And 
indeed  we  do  find,  in  what  we  may  call  the  "  Tezcucan  "  chroniclers,  like  Ixtlilxochitl, 
Torquemada,  Vey tia,  and  Clavigero,  the  Mexicans  assisting  the  Tecpanecas  (vide  "  His- 
toire  des  Chichimuques,"  cap.  XV,  p.  102.  Cap.  XVI,  p.  108.  Cap.  XX,  pp.  131  and  132. 
"Monarchia  Indiana,"  Lib.  II,  cap.  XIX,  p.  108.  "Historia  Antigua  de  Mejico,"  Lib. 

II,  cap.  XXVIII,  pp.  236, 237, 238.    Cap.  XXIX,  pp. 241-243.    Cap.  XXX,  p. 250.    "Storiade 
Messic.o,"  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VIII).    Bustamante  ("  Tezcoco  en  los  ultimos  Tiempos,"  p.  2), 
who  claims  to  follow  Boturini,  confirms.    The  military  achievements  of  the  Mexicans  in 
the  wars  between  the  Tecpanecas  and  Tezcucans  are  not  even  claimed  by  these  authors 
as  a  due  service,  but  as  the  actions  of  allies  or  confederates  of  the  former. 

51  Cortes  ("  Carta  Segunda,"  p.  35,  in  Vedia  I).  "  The  manner  of  his  service  was  (of 
Montezuma),  that  every  day  at  sunrise,  about  600  Lords  and  leading  men  were  in  his 
house,  which  either  seated  themselves,  or  some  walked  around  in  some  halls  and  cor 
ridors  therein  contained,  and  there  remained  and  spent  their  time  without  entering 
where  he  was.  And  their  servants  and  persons  accompanying  them  filled  two  or  three 
great  courts  ("patios")  as  well  as  the  street,  which  was  very  large.  They  remained 
there  without  leaving  it  until  night.  And  at  the  time  they  served  to  eat  to  the  said 
Muteczuma,  they  also  served  all  these  Lords  as  well  as  their  attendants.  The  supplies 
or  stores  ("la  dispensa  y  botilleria  ")  were  open  daily  to  all  those  who  wished  to  eat 
and  drink."  See  also  Sahagun  (Lib.  IX,  cap.  I,  to  V,  concerning  the  receptions  to 
traders,  by  the  head-chiefs).  Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LIXIX,  p.  231.  He  states  that 
all  his  subjected  chieftains,  3,000  in  number,  their  attendants  included,  ate  at  "his 
court."  Lib.  XIV,  cap.  I,  p.  534,  speaking  of  the  messengers,  says  that  they  were  lodged 
at  the  "Calpixca"  or  house  of  the  community.  In  another  place  he  mentions  that 
house  as  the  "Tecpan."  See  note  47).  Duran  describes  several  religious  solemnities, 
at  which  the  chiefs  of  neighboring  tribes  assisted,  which  the  head-chief  of  Mexico  had 
to  entertain  (Cap.  XX,  pp.  175  and  176.  Cap.  XXIII,  p.  195.  The  chiefs  of  Tezcuco, 
Tacuba,  Chalco,  Xuchimilco,  etc.,  etc.,  were  invited  to  attend,  and  on  their  coming  they 
were  quartered  in  the  royal  houses  ("futron  aposentados  en  las  casas  reales").  Idem, 
cap.  I,  III,  pp.  416-421.  Cap.  LIV,  p.  428.  The  delegates  from  Chalco,  Tlaxcallan,  Chol- 
nllan,  etc.,  etc.,  were  lodged  at  the  Tecpan  ("en  su  mesmo  palacio  real").  Cap.LVIII, 
p.  459).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XXI,  p.  33.  Cap.  LXI,  p.  101,  wherein  Ahuitzotl  is  especially 
enjoined  to  •'  give  to  eat  to  his  people."  Cap.  LXXXII,  p.  144,  "  y  los  vasallos  recibidos 
como  a  tales  tributaries,  aposentandoles,  vistiendoles  y  dandoles  lo  necessario  para  las 

vueltas  de  sus  tierras con  los  viejos  y  viejas  mucho  amor,  dandolos  para  el 

sustento  humano  :  regalados  los  principales  teniendoles  en  mucho,  y  dandoles  la  honra 
que  merecen :  llamarlos  cada  dia  al  palacio  que  comian  con  vos."  This  indicates  that 
the  hospitality  was  obligatory,  etc.).  Zurita  ("Rapport,  etc.,"  p.  65).  Herrera  (Dec. 

III,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XXII,  p.  138). 


410 

With  continued  increase  of  the  population,  the  "  tecpan  "  alone 
did  no  longer  suffice,  thus  each  "  calpulli"  erected,  within  its  own 
area,  its  own  council  place  for  the  transaction  of  its  interior 
business,  lodging  in  it,  after  the  model  of  the  "tecpan,"  its  own 
chief-men,  and  exercising  there  its  share  of  the  general  hos 
pitality.  So  Mexico  became  dotted  with  public  constructions, 
necessarily  distinguished  by  their  size  and  arrangement  from  the 
rest  of  the  buildings.52 

The  chiefs  and  their  families  who  resided  in  the  official  houses, 
and  upon  whom  devolved  the  exercise  of  public  hospitality, — con 
tinued  to  participate  for  their  share  in  the  use  of  the  soil  held  and 
cultivated  by  the  "calpulli  "to  which  they  belonged  by  descent. 
But  whereas  formerly  they  could  improve  these  lands  themselves, 
this  became  impossible  with  the  increase  of  public  business,  and 
the  task  of  cultivating  them  devolved,  first  upon  their  children 
and  families,  afterwards,  when  even  these  were  required  for  the 
duties  of  the  official  household, —  upon  the  other  members  of  the  kin. 
This  was  done,  not  in  token  of  vassalage,  but  as  a  remuneration 
for  the  public  services  of  the  chiefs.  The  same  took  place  in 
regard  to  the  "  tecpan "  and  its  occupants.  With  the  increase 
of  intercourse,  however,  the  scanty  crops  raised  in  this  manner 
became  insufficient,  and  a  regular  contribution,  by  each  member  of 
the  different  kinships,  towards  maintenance  of  the  chiefs  and  the 
visitors  they  had  to  entertain,  was  instituted.  Certain  expanses 
were  set  aside,  to  be  worked  by  communal  labor,  the  products  of 
which  were  exclusively  devoted  to  what  we  may  term  "  official 
purposes."  Thus  not  only  was  there  a  tax  created,  voluntarily  by 
the  tribal  components,  for  public  purpose,  but  a  new  feature  was 
introduced  in  the  distribution  of  the  soil.  The  mode  of  tenure, 


"These  houses,  sometimes  called  "calpulli,"  at  other  times  "  calpixoa."  were  the 
private  palaces,  which  the  Spanish  authors  mention.  They  were  but  "official  build 
ings;"  probably  connected  with  storehouses.  As  the  tribe  had  its  tecpan,  so  each  cal 
pulli,  or  localized  kinship,  its  own  council-house.  This  results  from  the  organization 
of  the  kinship.  See  also  "  Art  of  War,"  pp.  103  and  104.  What  distinguished  these  con- 
structionsfrom  the  common  house  or  abode  ("calli"),  were  the  halls  ("  salas"),  and  the 
"  tecpan  "  was  further  distinguished  by  a  lookout  or  tower.  (Duran,  cap.  XXVI,  p.  215. 
Tezozomoc,  cap.  XXXVI,  p.  58).  This  distinction  places  it  parallel  to  the  so-called 
" palace"  of  Palenque  in  Chiapas.  Compare  further:  Zurita  ("  Rapport,  etc;.,"  p.  C2). 
"  At  the  annual  gatherings,  they  (the  chiefs  of  the  calpulli)  distribute  gratuitously  food 
and  drink,  to  keep  the  Indians  in  good  humor."  Hen-era  (Dec.  II,  lib.  VII.  rap.  XIII, 
p.  190).  If  we  were  to  believe  the  picture  presented  of  Mexico  by  the  authors  of  the 
16th  and  17th  centuries,  Mexico  would  have  possessed  innumerable  ediiices  of  that 
kind. 


411 

however,  was  not  changed,  and  no  hereditary  rights  of  property 
were  called  into  existence  in  favor  of  the  chiefs  or  their  descen 
dants.53 

For  nearly  a  century  after  the  first  settlement  of  the  Mexicans 

53  No  mention  is  made  of  any  t\x  or  tribute  gathered  for  official  purposes  among  the 
Mexicans  until  under  the  last  Montezuma,  when  it  is  generally  admitted,  as  Gomara 
says :  "  That  all  tributed  to  the  chief  of  Mexico  "  ("  Conq.  de  Mejico,"  p.  345,  Vedia,  I). 
Without  accepting  the  view.s  expressed  by  Robertson  ("History  of  America."  Book 
VII,  p.  2J)I.  Vol.  Ill,  9th  Edition,  18CO),  who  ascribes  to  the  influence  of  Montezuma  a 
change  in  the  plan  of  government  of  the  Mexican  tribe,— it  still  appears  but  natural 
that  as  long  as  the  tribe  was  weak  in  numbers  and  resources,  the  original  or  typical 
form  of  communal  Institutions  prevailed,  whereas  with  increased  population  and  con 
sequent  increase  of  governmental  labor  the  members  of  the  tribe  were  compelled  to 
provide  for  the  maintenance  of  their  officers  and  their  families.  The  first  step  was  to 
cultivate  such  patches  of  land  for  them  as  they  held  being  members  of  some  calpulli. 
These  lands  were  the  "  pillali,"  commonly  treated  of  as  '•  patrimonial  estates."  Tor- 
quemada,  however,  says  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  546):  "Another  kind  of  lands  they 
called  pillali.  or,  so  to  say:  Lands  of  Knights  (u hidalgos")  or  nobles.  Of  these  there 
were  two  kinds.  In  the  first  case  the  land  was  inherited  with  the  nobility,  and  in  the 
other,  the  chief  gave  lands  to  such  as  had  achieved  distinction  and  valor  in  war,  and 
wei*e  ennobled  therefor.  To  these  the  chief  gave  lands  for  their  sustenance,  but  they 
could  not  hold  renters  ("  terrazgueros")  but  might  sell  to  other  chiefs,  as  if  the  condi 
tional  gilt  from  the  chief  had  not  existed  :  and  neither  of  these  two  classes  could  dis 
pose  of  their  tracts  to  any  macehual  (common  man — perhaps  from  "  maitl" — hand,  and 
"ceualli" — shade, —  the  hand  of  some  one  who  gives  protection  or  shade),  for  in  that 
case  they  lost  them,  and  the  chief  entered  in  their  possession,  and  they  were  applied  to 
the  cal/mlli  in  whose  area  they  were  located,  in  order  that  the  said  duster  might  pay  tribute 
according  to  the  quantity  of  land  contained;  —  also,  if  any  one  of  them  died  without 
heirs,  the  chief  inherited  "  Hen-era  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XVII,  p.  138).  "  These  were 
lands  which  went  with  the  Lordship,  and  which  they  called  lands  of  the  Lordship,  and 
of  these  the  Lords  could  not  dispose,  but  rented  them  as  they  might  and  the  rents  were 
u<*ed  in  the  house  of  the  King,  because  there,  besides  all  the  principals,  also  ate  the  travel 
lers,  and  the  paupers,  for  which  service  the  Kings  were  much  honored  and  obeyed.  What 
these  rents  did  not  furnish,  was  supplied  by  their  patrimonial  estates."  Veytia  (Lib. 
Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  195).  '•  For  the  present  we  shall  but  say,  that  in  each  pueblo  and  place 
there  was  a  tract  of  land  of  best  quality,  which  was  of  the  Kings  or  Lord  of  the  estate 

For  the  sowing  and  working  of  these  lands  the  calpixque,  an  officer  of  the 

republic  (state)  in  each  pueblo,  daily  designated  the  common  people  who  had  to  work 
them,  and  all  the  fruit  belong  integrally  to  the  chief  for  the  maintenance  of  his  house." 
Ixtlilxochitl  (Hist,  des  Chichim.  cap.  XXXV,  pp.  242,  243  and  244).  Bustamante  ('  Tez- 
coco  en  los  Ultimos  Tiempos,  etc."  Part  III,  cap.  V,  p.  234,  etc.).  Oviedo  ("  Hist.  gen. 
y  nat."  lib.  XXXIII,  cap.  LI,  p.  53(5,  of  3d  vol.)  Now  we  have  already  established,  that 
individual  tenure  of  the  soil  was  unknown,  it  is  further  proved  that  the  offices  were 
non-hereditary,  we  cannot  fail,  therefore,  to  recognize.  1°.  In  the  "  pillali"  of  Torque- 
mada  the  original  "  chinampa"  held  by  chiefs  as  members  of  a  kinship. 

2°.  In  the  tracts  of  Herrera  and  Veytia  ''official  lands,"  specially  reserved  for  the 
wants  of  official  houses  and  their  occupants.  These  lands  went  "  with  the  office." 

No  date  car:  be  assigned  to  the  introduction  of  this  new  feature  among  the  Mexicans 
but  we  cannot  help  being  struck  by  the  fact  that  the  Tezcucan  chroniclers  make  spe 
cial  mention  of  it,  connecting  it  with  the  time  when  Nezahualcoyotl  became  chief  of 
Tezcoco  (See  Ixtlilxochitl '-  Hist,  des  Chichim."  cap.  XXXV.  Veytia,  Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI, 
p.  195.  Bnstamante,  Part  III.  cap.  V).  The  connection  is  implied  rather  than  expressed, 
and  but  excuses  the  suggestion  :  that  such  a  change  might  have  occurred  about  the  close 
of  the  fourteenth  and  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries.  Of  course  we  allude  here 
to  the  Mexicans  alone,  and  not  to  the  tribes  of  the  mainland. 


412  x 

in  the  lagune,  they  were  confined  to  their  original  area  and  to  such 
artificial  garden-beds  as  they  accumulated  around  it.  Meanwhile 
their  allies  on  the  mainland,  the  Tecpanecas,  were  making  them 
selves  formidable  in  warfare  to  the  other  tribes  ;  the  Mexicans 
assisting.  The  moment  arrived  however,  when  the  latter,  having 
secured  a  defensive  position,  acquired  military  experience  and 
greater  strength,  sought  to  free  themselves  from  the  tax  which  had 
heretofore  burthened  their  trade  and  barter.  War  ensued,  and  the 
Mexicans,  now  in  turn  supported  by  enemies  of  the  Tecpanecas, 
completely  overthrew  the  power  of  the  latter  tribe.  By  this 
victory,  they  not  only  secured  a  foothold  on  the  mainland,  but 
became  at  once  one  of  the  ruling  tribes  of  the  western  valley  of 
Mexico.5  [ 

The  only  territorial  accession  gained  by  the  Mexicans,  in  fact 
the  only  one  claimed  by  them,  appears  to  have  been  the  hill  of 
Chapultepec.  They  already  had  the  use  of  the  springs  rising 
there,  now  they  acquired  their  full  and  unincumbered  possession.55 
The  remainder  of  Tecpanecan  territory  was  left  to  that  tribe 
intact,  and  in  no  manner  annexed  to  that  of  Mexico.  The  orga 
nization  of  the  tribe,  its  government,  and  distribution  of  the  soil, 
remained  equally  undisturbed.  No  Mexican. representatives  were 
delegated  to  rule  Azcaputzalco  or  Cuyuacan.  But  the  Mexicans 
in  turn  subsequently  controlled  the  military  power  of  the  con 
quered  tribe,  and,  besides,  it  was  thereafter  held  to  tribute.  This 

"Duran  (Cap.  IX  and  X).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  VII,  VIIF.  IX,  X,  XF,  XII,  XIII.  XIV 
and  XV).  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIII  and  XIV).  Hen-era  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  II,  cap.  XII 
and  XIII).  Ixtlilxochitl  (Hist,  des  Chichim.,"  Cap.  XXX,  XXXI  and  XXXII).  Torque- 
mada(Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXV,  XXXVI  and  XXXVII).  Veytia  YLib.  II,  cap.  I,  LI.  LII,  LIU 
and  LIV).  Clavigero  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  XVII,  XVIII  and  XIX).  Bustamante  (Part  I.  cap. 
XXIII).  Prescott  (•<  History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico,"  Book  I,  cap.  I,  pp.  15  and  18). 

66 It  is  even  stated  that  the  petition  of  the  Mexicans  for  stone  and  wood  to  construct 
therewith  a  channel  leading  from  Chapultepec  to  their  pueblo,  was  the  cause  of  the  war. 
See  Puran  (Cap.  VIII,  p.  63).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  V,  pp.  11  and  12).  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap. 
II,  p.  47G.  '•  Con  esta  ocasion,  ora  sea  que  ellos  de  proposito  lo  buscassen,  para  romper 
con  los  Tepanecas,  ora  que  con  poca  consideracion  se  moviessen,  al  efecto  embiaron 
una  embaxada  al  Rey  de  Azeapuzalco  muy  resoluta  diziendo,  que  del  agua  qne  los 
auia  hecho  merced,  no  podian  aprovccharse,  por  auerseles  desbaratado  el  cafio  por 
muchas  partes,  por  tanto  le  pedian  los  proviniesse  de  madera,  y  cal,  y  piodra,  y 
embiasse  sus  oflciales  que  con  ellos  hiziessen  un  caiio  de  cal  y  canto  que  no  M-  dcsbar- 
atas«e.")  Chapultepec  remained  specifically  Mexican  soil  thereafter,  it  being  the  source 
of  fresh  water  for  the  pueblo  of  Mexico.  When  Cortes  moved  against  the  tribe  the 
second  time,  he  seized  the  hill  after  a  short  but  desperate  struggle.  (Cories  "Carta 
Tercera,"  p.  71,  Vedia  I.  Bernal-Diez,  cap.  CL,  p.  17(i,  Vedia  II.  Clavigero,  Lib.  X. 
cap.  XVII).  See  al*o  Icazbalceta,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  3d  Dialogue  of  Cervantes. 
Salazar  (•'  Mexico  in  155V  pp.  2.r><5  and  257).  Vcytia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  I,  p.  U2,  of  3d  vol.). 
Bustamante  ("  Tezcoco  en  los  ult:  Tiempos."  Parte  Ha,  cap.  I,  p.  148). 


413 

tribute  was  gathered  by  stewards,  the  only  Mexicans  permanently 
residing  on  Tecpanecan  soil,  and  it  was  distributed  in  accordance 
witli  the  tribal  organization  :  among  the  calpules  for  the  use  of 
their  public  households  and  of  their  individual  members,  and  to 
the  "tecpan"  for  the  maintenance  of  the  tribal  government  and 
business  ;  out  of  the  former,  a  certain  share  was  reserved  for  the 
purpose  of  religious  worship.56 

This  tribute  consisted  of  objects  held  and  acquired  by  the 
Tecpanecas  through  trade,  war  and  their  own  manufacture.  But 
it  also  included  the  products  of  their  horticulture.  These  had  to 
be  raised  annually  either  on  their  own  garden-beds,  or  on  a  certain 
expanse  reserved  in  each  "calpulli"  for  the  production  of  tribute. 
The  Tecpanecas  having  the  same  system  of  distribution  of  the 
soil  as  the  Mexicans,  and  the  kindred  group  being  the  unit  of  their 
organization  also,  the  latter  method  was  naturally  resorted  to. 
Therefore  in  each  one  of  the  areas  held  by  the  calpules  of  the 
conquered  tribe,  a  certain  plot  was  set  off,  to  be  tilled  in  common 
by  the  members  of  the  kin,  for  the  benefit  of  their  conquerors. 

scAcosta  says  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIII,  p.  485),  that  they  took  all  the  lands  for  them 
selves:  -with  this,  those  of  Azcapuzalco  were  left  so  poor,  that  they  had  not  even 
crops  of  their  own."  Duran  (Cap.  IX,  p.  79.  "  They  went  to  Azcaputzalco  and  seized 
('  se  entregaron ')  its  lands  and  distributed  them  among  themselves.")  Tezozomoc  (Cap. 
IX.  p.  1(>  and  17).  It  is  difficult  to  connect  these  and  similar  statements  with  the  posi 
tive  facts  asserted  by  Zurita  (Rapport  sur  les  differentes  classes  de  chefs  delaNouvelle 
Espagne.")  "The  sovereign  of  Mexico  had  beneath  him.  in  all  matters  relating  to  war 
fare,  those  of  Tctcuba  and  of  Tezcuco;  in  regard  to  all  others,  their  powers  were  equal, 
so  that  neither  of  them  intervened  in  the  government  of  the  others"  (p.  11),— by  Veytia 
(Lib.  Ill,  cap.  Ill,  p.  161),  and  even  by  Ixtlilxochitl  ("  Hist,  des  Chichim.,"  Cap.  XXXIV, 
p.  2.35),  which  establish  the  complete  territorial  independence  of  the  Tecpanecas  from 
the  Mexicans;  even  after  their  defeat.  Duran  also  says  (Cap.  IX,  p.  77) :  that  the  Tec 
panecas  promised  tribute  and  lands.  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  IX,  p.  10)  confirms,  stating  that 
they  offered  tribute,  personal  service,  and  assistance  in  war.  We  cannot  conciliate 
these  different  reports  except  by  admitting  that  the  Tecpanecas  submitted  to  the  ordi 
nary  manner  of  Indian  conquest,  namely:  to  tribute,  to  military  aid,  and  for  the  pur 
pose  of  tribute,  to  the  reservation  of  certain  tracts  whose  crops  were  to  go  exclusively 
to  the  conquerors.  Of  the  latter  we  have  positive  proof.  See  Duran  (Cap.  IX,  p.  79). 
Tezozomoc  (Cap.  IX,  p.  17).  Only  these  authors  mention  that  these  tracts  went  to  per 
sons  or  individuals.  But  how  is  this  possible,  since  no  individual  possession  of  land 
appears  in  Mexico,  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  even;  as  we  shall  see  further  on.  The 
tracts  in  question  must,  therefore,  have  been  given  to  such  persons  as  representatives  of 
certain  kinships,  or  "  calpules,"  as  Tezozomoc  intimates,  saying  (Cap.  XV,  p.  21):  "  and 
let  us  distribute  the  lands  among  all  of  us,  in  order  to  hold  of  them  some  pastime  and  sus 
tenance  for  us,  our  children  and  heirs."  Besides,  Duran  asserts :  that  the  division  took 
place  for  the  benefit  of  the  chiefs,  and  of  the  quarters  (•'  barrios,"  or  calpules),  which 
tends  to  prove  that  there  were  "official  lauds"  and  "lands  of  the  kinship"  set  off  for 
the  conquerors  on  the  conquered  territory.  That  a  portion  of  the  latter  provided  for 
religious  purposes,  is  established  by  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIII,  p.  483),  and  by  Durau 
(Cap.  IX). 


414 

The  crops  raised  thereon  were  again  apportioned  by  the  latter 
among  themselves  as  we  have  explained  previously,  but  the}*  did 
not  acquire  any  title  to  the  possession,  still  less  to  the  ownership 
of  the  soil  itself.57  Once  started  on  their  career  of  conquest,  the 

C78ee  Duran  (Cap.  IX,  p.  79  and  80).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  IXfcp.  16.  "  Para  aninnsnr  y 
traher  &  paz  a  los  Mexicanos  que  tan  pujantes  y  orgullosos  estavan  contra  los  Tecpan- 
ecas,  digeron  estos:  eenores  Mexicanos,  como  vencidos  qne  somos  de  vostros,  y  os 
tenemos  dadas  nuestras  hermanas  y  hijas  que  os  sirvan  y  nuestras  mugeres,  y  nos  pro- 
ferimos  a  vasallage,  y  de  todas  las  veces  que  fueredes  en  guerras  y  batallas  con  estra- 
iias,  \remos  nosotros  como  vasallos,  y  llevaremos  a  cuestas  vuestro  matalotage,  y 
llevare^nos  &  cuestas  vuestras  armas,  y  en  caso  que  en  las  guerras,  algunos,  a  alguno 
de  los  Mexicanos  muriere,  nos  proferimos  &  traheros  los  cuerpos  cargados  ft  vuestra 
tierra.  ciudad,  a  ser  con  honra  enterrados,  y  venidos  que  seais  de  las  guerras,  y  antes  y 
despues  bareremos,  y  regaremos,  vuestras  casas,  tcndremos  cuidado  de  vosotros  con 
nue&tro  servicio  personal,  pues  asi  estamos  obligados  confonne  a  usanza  de  guerra, 
y  nosotros  de  servidumbre."  The  Mexicans  then  spoke  to  themselves  and  said:  "you 
now  have  heard  the  promises,  subjection,  and  domination  to  which  the  Tecpanecas  of 
Azcaputzalco  submit,  offering  to  give  us  wood,  planking,  stones  and  lime  for  our  houses, 
to  plant  for  us  maize,  beans,  calabashes,  spices  of  the  country,  chile,  and  tomate,  and 
to  be  our  servants,  and  the  principals  of  them  to  become  our  stewards  .  .  .  .")  This 
expresses  about  the  amount  and  measure  of  subjection  of  one  tribe  to  another.  Zurita 
further  informs  us  (pp.  6H  and  G7).  "  When  the  Kings  of  Mexico,  Tezcuco  and  Tacuba 
conquered  a  province,  they  used  to  retain  all  the  native  chiefiains  in  their  offices; 
whether  they  were  supreme  or  but  inferior.  The  people  always  kept  its  property, 
finally  the  usages  and  customs  of  the  established  government  were  respected.  These 
sovereigns  designated  territories  proportionate  to  their  conquests :  the  vanquished  tilled 
them  in  common  and  made  plantings  appropriate  to  the  soil.  This  kind  of  tribute,  or 
homage  ("homage-lige"),  was  paid  to  officers  ("des  intendants")  established  by  the 
sovereigns  of  Mexico,  of  Tezcuco,  or  Tacuba,  accord. ng  as  the  vanquished  hud  become 
vassals  of  one  or  of  the  other  prince.  Besides,  they  were  liable  to  military  service, 
which  obligation  rested  indiscriminately  on  all  the  conquered  provinces.  The  chiefs 
remaining  Lords  as  before  the  war,  preserved  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  in  the  full 
extent  of  their  domain."  Nevertheless,  we  have  detailed  reports  about  certain'  lands 
having  been  applied  by  the  Mexicans  to  certain  chiefs  (Tezozomoc,  cap.  XV,  p.  -21): 
it  was  done  at  the  time  that  such  chiefs  received  cert. tin  titles  or  dignities.  These  titles 
and  dignities,  however,  were  not  hereditary,  but  elective  (Duran,  cap.  XI,  p.  103).  •'  To 
these  four  chiefs  and  titularies,  after  they  were  elected  princes)  they  made  them  belong 
to  the  royal  council  as  presidents  and  members  ("oydores")  of  tlie  supreme  council, 
without  whose  opinion  (or  consent,  advice  "parecer")  nothing  could  be  done,  and  the 
King  being  dead,  from  these  and  no  others  his  successor  had  to  be  chosen,  and  neither 
could  they  be  placed  in  such  positions  unless  they  were  sons  or  brothers  ot  Kings,  and 
thus,  if  one  of  these  four  had  been  promoted,  they  put  another  one  in  his  place,  and  it 
is  to  know  that  they  never  chose  a  son  of  him  whom  they  elected  for  King,  or  of  him 
who  died,  because  as  I  have  said,  the  sons  did  not  obtain  the  titles  through  inheritance, 
but  by  election.  Thus,  whether  son,  brother,  or  cousin,  if  the  King  and  his  council 
elected  him  to  any  title,  it  was  given  to  him,— it  being  sufficient  that  he  belonged  to 
that  lineage  and  was  a  near  relative,  and  thus  the  sons  and  brothers  went  succeeding 
little  by  little,  and  the  title  and  Lordship  remained  in  that  generation  (descendant-^ •), 
being  elected  successively.  These  Lords  had  vassals  who  to  them  paid  tribute,  small 
pueblos,  rented  lands  ("estancias  terrazgueros  ")  that  gave  them  all  kinds  of  supplies 

and  clothing "    It  is  also  stated  that  the  Mexicans,  when  they  conquered  the 

Tecpanecas,  distributed  of  their  lands  to  the  quarters  (Cap.  IX.  p.  Til.  Duran,—  and 
Acosta,  Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIII,  p.  485.  "Senalaron  tambien  tierras  de  coinun  para  los 
barrios  de  Mexico  a  cada  uno  las  suyas,  para  que  con  ellas  ucudiessen  al  culto  y  sac- 
riflcio  de  BUS  dioses.") 


415 

Mexicans,  supported  by  their  allies,  sought  to  extend  their  power. 
The  tribes  of  the  southeast,  the  Xochimilcas,  the  Chinampanecas, 
(also  called  the  four  chieftaincies:  "  Nauhteuctli")  were  the  first 
to  become  their  prey.  Their  fate,  after  they  had  once  submitted, 
was  the  same  as  that  of  the  Tecpanecaus.  The  territory  was  not 
annexed,  neither  was  the  organization  changed.  But  they  were 
held  to  military  assistance,  and  especially  to  tribute.  The  latter 
drew  forth,  as  a  consequence,  the  establishment  of  tribute-lands, 
like  those  which  we  have  already  met  with  at  the  close  of  the 
Tecpanecan  war.58 

When  finally,  after  a  contest  of  unusual  length  and  bitterness, 
the  tribe  of  Chalco  also  had  to  submit  to  the  same  conditions 
of  tribute  and  warlike  control,59 — the  Mexicans  were  really  the 
leading  power  of  the  valle3T.60  Their  means  of  subsistence,  besides, 
had  greatly  increased  through  tribute,  among  which  the  crops  of 
the  tribute-lauds  were  most  conspicuous  —  as  well  as  through  trade. 
One  single  tribe  of  the  "Nahuatl"  of  the  valley  remained  unsub 
dued,  the  Aculhuas  of  Tezcuco.  Instead,  however,  of  engaging 
in  a  deadly  conflict,  the  result  of  which  might  have  been  equally 

If  we  attentively  consider  the  above,  we  find: 

(1).  That  no  change  was  made  in  the  tenure  of  lands,  and  no  conversion  of  the  Tec 
panecan  territory  into  a  Mexican  domain  was  efteeted  by  the  conquest. 
(2).  That  certain  expanse-!  were  set  aside,  which  continued  to  be  held  by  the  con 
quered,  and  worked  by  thorn  after  the  usual  communal  plan,  but  whose  crops 
Avent  exclusively  towards  the  tribute. 

(3).  That  these  crops  were  divided,  corresponding  to  the  organization  of  the  Mexicans, 
—  between  the  official  requirements  —  C'tecpan" — )  (•' calpulh"  as  official 
house  for  the  quarters) — the  people  (quarters  "  barrios,")  and  worship.  The 
analogy  with  Peru  (Inca,  worship  and  people),  is  striking. 

The  distribution  of  lands  to  certain  chiefs  therefore,  mentioned  in  connection  with 
the  'onquest  of  the  Tecpanecasvsimply  indicates  that  these  lands  were  applied  to  the 
maintenance  of  such  offices,  and  not  an  hereditary  ''fief"  to  a  certain  family.  Duran 
positively  expresses,  that  the  office  belonged  in  the  *'kin"  ("lignea"  — "generacion,") 
and  was  not  hereditary.  The  lands  therefore  pertained  to  the  office  as  a  governmental 
feature  of  the  kinship  or  calpulli,  and  not  to  the  person  or  offspring  of  any  incumbent. 
In  the  same  way,  certain  tracts  (or  rather  their  crops),  went  to  the  tecpan  or  its 
occupants,  as  a  governmental  feature  of  the  tribe  (Bustamante,  Paite  111  cap.  V, 
p.  283). 

M  Duran  (Cap.  XII.  Id.  XIII.  p.  114.  XIV,  p.  123).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XVII,  p.  28, 
XVIII,  p.  2J>),  and  Acosta. 

so  Duran  (Cap.  XVII,  p.  152).  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XXVI,  pp.  39  and  40).  Acosta  (Lib. 
VII,  cap.  XVI,  p.  493),  etc.  etc. 

eo  Out  of  the  live  Nahuatl  tribes  who  had  originally  settled  in  the  valley  of  Mexico, 
three  were  then  subjected  to  the  Mexicans.  Consequently  the  Tezcncans  or  Aculhu- 
acans  alone  remained.  Territorially,  the  latter  probably  covered  the  larger  expanse, 
but  the  Mexicans  and  their  allies  had  the  advantage  in  position  and  numbers. 


416      . 

disastrous  for  both  parties,  negotiations  commenced,  terminating 
with  the  formation  of  a  military  confederacy,  under  the  leadership 
of  Mexico.61 

It  appears  that  in  this,  as  in  all  other  transactions  of  the  same 
nature,  mutual  concessions  had  to  be  made.  Thus,  while  the 
Tezcucans  conceded  the  military  command  to  the  Mexicans,  the 
latter  had  to  admit  into  the  confederacy  that  part  of  the  Tecpane- 
cas  who,  since  the  destruction  of  Azcaputzalco,  recognized  in 
Tlacopan  (Tacuba)  their  chief  pueblo.  Through  tezcucan  influ 
ence  it  is  even  probable  that  the  tribute  heretofore  paid  to  the 
Mexicans  by  that  tribe,  was  relinquished  by  the  former.62 

The  following  seem  to  have  been  the  leading  features  of  the 
confederacy. 

It  consisted  of  the  three  tribes  of  Mexico,  Tezcuco  and  Tlaco 
pan.  Each  of  these  tribes  was  territorially  independent;  as" well 
as  in  the  management  of  its  own  affairs :  from  the  two  others.63 

The  military  command  of  the  forces  belonged  to  the  head-war- 


«  Duran  (Cap.  XIV,  p.  124.  Cap.  XV,  pp.  125-132),  mentions  a  sham  fight  between 
the  Mexicans  and  Tezrucans,  ending  in  a  confederacy.  Acosta  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XV,  p. 
490),  confirms.  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  II,  cap.  XIII,  p.  64),  speaks  of  a  voluntary  "  sub 
mission  "  by  the  Tezcucans.  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XIX  and  XX),  asserts  that  the  Tezcucans 
were  actually  conquered  by  the  Mexicans.  On  the  other  hand,  Ixtlilxochitl  ("Hist.  des 
Chichim."  Cap.  XXXIV).  Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LVII,  p.  175).  Veytia  (Lib.  Ill, 
cap.  V).  Bustamaute  ("Tezcoco"  Parte  Ila,  cap.  V),  affirm  that  a  fight  took  place,  in 
which  the  Mexicans  were  worsted,  and  after  which  the  Tezcucan  feudal  ''empire"  was 
firmly  established.  The  truth  probably  lies  between  the  two  extremes,  and  is  recognized 
as  such  by  Toi-quemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LVII,  p.  175).  Duran  (Cap.  XIV,  p.  125),  and 
finally  expressed  by  Zurita  ("Rapport,"  p.  11),  as  follows:  "The  sovereign  of  Mexico 
was  superior  to  those  of  Tacuba  and  Tezcuco  in  matters  touching  warfare  ;  in  all  others, 
their  powers  were  equal,  so  that  neither  of  them  meddled  with  the  government  of  the 
others."  Herrera  has  adopted  this  view,  copying  almost  textually  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  p. 
133,  of  chapter  XV). 

62  The  only  confession  found  in  specifically  Mexican  authors  on  the  subject  of  the 
Tecpanecas  of  Tlacopan  is  the  quotation  from  Duran  (Cap.  XIV,  p.  J'23).  But  Ixtlilxo 
chitl  ("Hist,  des  Chichim.,  "Cap.  XXXII,  pp.218  and  220.)  says:  "It  is^plainly  visible 
from  this  song  that  the  three  dynasties  named  were  the  principal  ones  of  Mexico,  and 
that  the  King  of  Tlacopan  was  regarded  as  equal  to  those  of  Mexico  and  Tezcuco.") 
Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LVII,  p.  175.  Cap.  XXXIX,  p.  144).  Veytia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  III). 
Clavigero  (Lib.  IV,  caps.  II  and  III),  and  Bustamante  (Parte  Ilia.  cap.  IT,  pp.  Kil,  liii 
and  1(33).  —  All  are  positive  in  affirming  that  the  Tezcucans  insisted  upon  having  the 
Tecpanecas  as  a  third  member.  The  Mexican  antl  ors  not  contradicting,  and  impartial 
sources,  like  Zurita  and  Herrera,  —  establishing  the  fact  of  equality  of  power,  and  ter 
ritorial  autonomy  (See  note  (51),  we,  therefore,  feel  justified  in  recognizing  the  fact  as 
established. 


de  Zurita  ("Rapport  sur  les  diffeientes  classes  do  chefs  de  la  Nouvelle- 
Espagne,"  p.  11). 


417 

chief  of  the  Mexican  tribe,  with  power  probably  to  delegate  the 


same.64 

Each  of  the  three  tribes  elected  its  head  war-chiefs  according 
to  its  own  customs ;  but  the  installation  in  office,  the  investiture, 
took  place  with  the  concurrence  of  the  head-chiefs  of  the  other 
tribes.  This  was  especially  the  case  in  Mexico,  where  the  "tlaca- 
tecuhtli"  became  commander-in-chief  of  the  confederacy.65 

Each  tribe  could  carry  on  its  own  wars,  defensive  as  well  as 
offensive,  independently  ;  but  if  required,  the  others  had  to  assist, 
in  which  case  the  Mexicans  took  the  lead.66 

Consequently,  each  tribe  could  have  its  own  conquests,  and  levy 
its  own  tribute  upon  tribes  which  it  had  conquered  alone.61 

But  wherever  the  confederacy  had  subjugated  a  foreign  tribe,  the 
spoils  as  well  as  all  the  subsequent  tribute  were  divided  among  the 
three,  members  as  follows :  Mexico  and  Tezcuco  each  two-fifths, 
and  Tlacopan  one-fifth.68 

The  establishment  of  this  confederacy  did  not,  in  any  manner 
whatever,  alter  the  principles  already  recognized  for  the  tenure 
and  distribution  of  the  soil.  It  only  shows,  and  the  subsequent 
career  of  the  confederation  further  supports  it,  that  these  princi 
ples  were  common  among  the  three  tribes  concerned.  Wherever 
their  conquests  extended,  the  conquered  were  not  annexed,  but 
simply  subjected  to  tribute,  their  territory  and  tribal  autonomy 
were  preserved,  and  no  change  introduced  in  the  distribution  of 
the  soil  beyond  the  reservation  of  tracts  for  the  raising  of  tribute. 
Stewards,  "calpixca,"  were  the  only  representatives  of  the  confed 
eracy  or  of  any  of  its  members,  residing  permanently  with  the 

e*  Zuvita  (p.  11).    Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  133). 

65Mendieta  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XXXV II,  p.  153).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XI,  cap.  XXVI,  p. 
35:5).  Duran  (Cap.  XXXII,  p.  255;  cap.  XXXIX,  p.  303;  cap.  XLI.  p.  325;  cap.  LII,  p.  409). 
Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XLI,  p.  66;  cap.  LVI,  p.  91 ;  caps.  LX  and  LXI,  p.  100;  cap.  LXXXII, 
pp.  142  and  14:*).  Ixtlilxochitl  ("  Hist,  des  Chichim.,"  Cap.  I,  pp.  2  and  3;  cap.  LX,  p. 
49;  cap.  LXX,  p.  102).  See  also  Veytia,— but  especially  Clavigeio,  who  is  very  positive 
(Lib.  IV,  cap.  III.  "  Besides,  the  two  Kings  (of  Tezcnco  and  Tacuba),  were  honorary 
assistants  to  the  election  of  the  Mexican  Kings.  They  had  but  to  sanction  the  election 
.  .  .  .") 

GO  Zurita  (p.  67).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  133).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV. 
cap.  VIII,  pp.  546  and  547). 

67  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  133). 

os  Torquemada  (Lib.  II,  cap.  LVII,  p.  175;  cap.  XXXIX.  p.  144;  lib.  XIV.  cap.  VIII, 
pp.  546, 517  and  548).  Zurita  ("  Rapport.''  p.  12).  Ixtlilxochitl  (Cap.  XXXI I,  pp.  21!)  and 
220).  Veytia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  Ill,  pp.  164  and  1(55).  Bustamante  ("Tezcoco,  etc.,"  Parte 
II,  cap.  Ill,  pp.  163  and  165).  Clavigero  (Lib.  IV,  cap.  III). 

REPORT  PEABODY  MUSEUM,  II.    27. 


418 

tributaries.69  In  short,  the  same  treatment  to  which  the  Tecpane- 
cas  had  once  submitted,  at  the  hands  of  the  Mexicans  alone,  was 
the  one  received  by  foreign  tribes  from  the  confederacy,  from  the 
time  of  its  formation  down  to  its  overthrow  by  the  Spaniards. 
All  the  conquests  intervening  did  not  therefore  result  in  the  for 
mation  of  a  state  based  upon  feudal  notions  of  territorial  domain 
and  vassalage,  but  simply  in  a  conglomerate  of  scattered  tribes  often 
mutually  inimical,  who  looked  with  terror  to  the  valley  of  Mexico 
as  the  abode  of  their  conquerors.  Over  these  conquerors  the 
Mexicans  held  military  direction,  and  the  name  of  Mexico,  or 
its  equivalent  of  "Culhua,"  was  best  known.  As  early  as  1518, 
Juan  de  Grijalva  heard  it  on  the  coast  of  Tabasco.70  This  wide 
diffusion  of  the  name,  coupled  with  the  still  more  extensive  spread 
of  the  language,71  and  the  undisguised  dread  of  the  natives  before 
that  very  name,  has  created  in  the  minds  of  Europeans  the  picture 
of  a  Mexican  nation,  state,  and  feudal  Empire ;  whereas  there  was 
nothing  else  but  the  military  confederacy  of  the  three  leading  Na- 
huatl  tribes  of  the  valley  of  Mexico.72 

This  rapid  sketch  of  the  history  of  the  Mexicans,  up  to  the  time 
when  they  confederated  with  the  tribes  of  Tezcuco  and  Tlacopan, 
has  shown  to  us  that  in  no  case  was  the  notion  of  public  domain, 
of  governmental  lands,  current  among  the  tribes  of  Mexico.  The 
tribe  held  no  domain, —  conquest  of  another  tribe  by  it  did  not  (as 
feudal  conditions  would  imply)  convert  the  conquered  territory  into 
an  annex  or  dependency  of  the  conqueror,  as  far  as  the  possession 
of  the  soil  was  concerned.  Finally,  the  confederacy  itself,  as  such, 
did  not  even  hold  a  territory  of  its  own,  still  less  did  it  claim  pos 
session  of  areas  occupied  by  tributary  tribes. 

It  remains  now  for  us  to  revert  again  to  the  distribution  of  the 

69Zurita  ("Rapport,  etc.,"  p.  67).  "This  kind  of  tribute  or  allegiance  (i(  honiage- 
lige")  \vas  paid  to  officers  established  by  the  sovereigns  of  Mexico,  of  Tezcuco,  or  of 

Tacuba,  etc.,  etc The  chief  remaining  sovereign,  as  before  the  wars,  retained 

the  civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  over  all  their  dominions"  (Id.  p.  <;<»).  Andres  de 
Taiiia  ("Relacion,  etc."  Col.  de  Documentos,"  vol.  JI,  p.  579).  "  Art  of  War"  (p.  100, 
note  17).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VIII,  p.  547).  Veytia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  197). 

""•Itinerario  de  1'Armata  del  Re  Cnthclico  in  India  Verso  la  Isola  de  luchathan  del 
Anno  M.D.  XVIII,"  in  Col.  de  Docum,  vol.  I,  p.  21)3,  taken  from  llamusio.  Originally 
published  (1.V22),  in  the  "  Itinerario  de  Varthema,"  an  exceedingly  rare  book.  Bernal- 
Diez  (*'  Hist,  verdadera,"  Vedia  II,  rap.  XI,  )>.  10). 

71  Orozco  y  IJerra  ('•  Geografla  de  las  Lenguas,  etc.,"  Parte  II,  p.  83,  and  the  splendid 
ethnographical  chart). 

"Zurita  ("Rapport,  etc.,"  p.  11.  "The  province  of  Mexico  was  subject  to  three 
principal  chiefs,  etc.  etc.  .  .  ." 


419 

soil,  and  to  establish  its  customs  at  the  time  when  the  Europeans 
first  trod  the  Mexican  shore. 

We  readily  distinguish  several  classes  of  lands,  bearing  each  a 
different  name,  besides  the  ualtepetlalli,"  or  tribal  territory  or 
range.  The  latter  was  the  widest  circumscription  for  which  the 
Nahuatl  language  had  a  term.  (The  word  "Anahuac,"  which  is 
often  used,  is  utterly  inapplicable,  as  we  have  elsewhere  shown).73 
No  other  idea  of  tenure  was  connected  with  it,  beyond  that  of 
tribal  occupation. 

Each  of  the  numerous  tribal  areas,  overrun  by  the  confederacy 
(provided  the  natives  were  of  a  sedentary  character),  contained 
what  we  have  ventured  to  call  tribute-lots.  The  name  given  to 
these  tracts  was  possibly  "yaotlalli,"  but  rather  "milchimalli" 
("  lands  of  war,"  and  "  shield-lands  ")  ,74  As  before  said,  the  soil  of 
these  tracts  was  still  held  in  original  tenure  by  the  kinships  com 
posing  the  conquered  tribe,  but  the  crops  went  towards  the  tribute. 
There  is  no  indication  about  the  size  of  these  areas,  and  they  were 
the  only  ones  directly  connected  with  the  conquerors. 

Of  those  tracts  whose  products  were  exclusively  applied  to  the 
governmental  needs  of  the  pueblo  or  tribe  itself  (taken  as  an  in 
dependent  unit)  there  were,  as  we  have  already  seen,  two  particu 
lar  classes : 

The  first  was  the  "  tecpan-tlalli :" — land  of  the  house  of  the 
community,  whose  crops  were  applied  to  the  sustenance  of  such 
as  employed  themselves  in  the  construction,  ornamentation,  and 
repairs  of  the  public  house.  Of  these  there  were  sometimes 
several  within  the  tribal  area.  Tliej"  were  tilled  in  common  by 
special  families  who  resided  on  them,  using  the  crops  in  compensa 
tion  for  the  work  they  performed  on  the  official  buildings.75 

73Brasseur  de  Bourbourg  ("  Ruines  de  Palenque,"  Cap.  II,  p.  32,  and  note  10)  makes 
the  very  sensible  remark  that  the  name  '•  Anahuac  "  did  not  at  all  apply  to  a  "  state  "  or 
"  empire,"  etc.,  but  in  general  to  all  countries  situated  in  the  neighborhood  of  considera 
ble  bodies  of  water ;— such  as  lakes  or  large  streams;  or  the  shores  of  the  sea. 

74  MSS.  from  Simancas  "  De  Ford  re  de  succession  observe  par  les  Indiens  relative- 
ment  a  leurs  Torres  et  ae  leurs  Territoires  communaux,"  translated  by  Mr.  Ternaux- 
Compans  in  "  Recueil  de  Pieces,"  etc.,  pp.  223  and  224.     Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap. 
VII,  p.  540).    Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV.    He  includes  them  positively  in  the  soil 
of  the  kinships,  and  tieats  them  as  communal  lands,  the  produce  of  which  furnished 
military  supplies).    "  Yaotlalli"  is  improper  (see  ''  Art  of  War,"  p.  135,  note  158),  but 
'•Milchimalli"  is  possible. 

75  From  "tec-pan,"  chief-house  (Molina,  Parte  II,  p.  95),  and  "tlalli,"  soil  (Id.  p.  1-24). 
Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  546).    "There  was  another  class  of  lands  which 
belonged  to  the  chiel's  income;  and  those  who  dwelt  on  them  and  cultivated  them  were 


420 

The  second  class  was  called  "tlatoca-tlalli" — land  of  the  speak 
ers.  Of  these  there  was  but  one  tract  in  each  tribe,  which  was  to 
be  "four-hundred  of  their  measures  long  on  each  side,  each 
measure  being  equal  to  three  Castilian  rods."76  The  crops  raised 
on  such  went  exclusively  to  the  requirements  of  the  household  at 
the  "tecpan,"  comprising  the  head-chief  and  his  family  with  the 
assistants.77  The  tract  was  worked  in  turn  by  the  other  members 

called  Tecpanpouhqui.  or  Tecpnntlaca,  which  signifies:  people  of  the  palace  and  rent- 
e  rs  of  the  King.  Such  were  held  to  keep  in  repair  the  royal  palaces,  clean  the  gardens, 
find  to  attend  to  the  cleanliness  and  to  the  necessities  of  the  royal  palaces.  They  were 
regarded  with  much  respect,  as  people  most  directly  connected  with  the  houses  of  the 
King.  When  the  Lord  sallied  forth,  they  accompanied  him,  and  they  paid  no  other  tribute 
but  bouquets  (Ramilletes,"  flower-bunches)  and  birds  of  all  kind,  which  they  offered 
to  the  King.  Such  lands  descended  from  father  to  son,  but  they  could  not  sell  them, 
nor  dispose  of  them  in  any  way,  and  if  one  of  them  died  without  heirs,  or  left  the 
place,  his  house  and  lands  remained  for  those  of  his  kin  (•' parcialidnd  ")  to  put  an 
other  in  his  place,  according  to  the  commands  of  the  King,  or  of  the  Lord." — Herrera 
(Dec.  Ill,  lib.  cap.  XV,  p.  135).— Veytia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  19G).  «'  Besides  these  each 
pueblo  also  had  other  kinds  of  lands  called  tecpantlalli,  or  lands  of  the  palace  or  rent 
als  of  the  chief,  because  its  crops  also  went  integrally  towards  the  constructions  and 
repairs  of  the  palaces  of  the  Kings,  and  towards  other  expenses  aside  from  the  suste- 
nance.  The  people  who  ctiltivated  them  were  also  plebeians,  but  they  were  set  apart 
for  it  in  each  place,  and  were  called  tecpanpuhque  or  tecplantlaca,  that  is,  people  per 
taining  to  the  palaces,  and  they  could  not  work  any  other  lands."  Ixtlilxochitl  ("Hist. 
des  Chichimeques  cap.  XXXV,  p.  242.  "There  were  others  known  by  the  name  of 
Tecpantlali,  or  lands  which  depend  from  the  palaces  of  the  Lords.  The  Indians  tilling 
them  were  called  tecpanpouhque,or  people  connected  with  the  palaces  of  the  Lords"). 
Bustamante  ('•  Tezcoco,"  etc.,  Parte  HI,  cap.  V,  pp.233  and  234).  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII, 
cap.  XIV).  "  The  ownership  of  the  crownlands,  called  Tecpantlalli,  remained  in  the 
King,  but  certain  gentlemen  called  Tecpanpouhque  or  Tecpantlaca,  i.e.  people  of  the 
palace,  had  the  enjoyment  thereof.  These  paid  no  tribute  but  flowers  and  certain  biids 
which  they  offered  to  the  King  in  token  of  allegiance.  But  they  were  obligated  to  keep 
the  royal  palace  in  repair,  or  to  construct  new  ones  if  needed;  to  tend  to  the  royal  gar 
dens,  and  to  care  for  the  vassals  in  their  district.  It  was  their  duty  to  attend  court,  to 
escort  the  King,  if  he  appeared  in  public;  and  thus  they  were  highly  considered.  If 
one  of  them  died,  his  son  succeeded  in  all  his  duties,  but  he  lost  his  rights  by  removing 
from  the  place,  in  which  case  the  King  gave  him  the  use  of  another  tract,  or  left  it  to 
the  community,  in  whose  area  the  land  lay,  to  assign  to  him  another  piece." 

The  above  quotations  show  conclusively  that  the  soil  of  the  "  tecpantlalli"  was  held 
and  vested  in  the  King,  and  only  the  crops  went  to  certain  official  purposes.  The  occu 
pants  thereof  were  not  serfs,  since  it  is  implied  that  they  might  remove  at  their 
pleasure,  but,  as  any  other  members  of  a  calpulli,  in  accordance  with  what  we  shall 
hereafter  show,  they  lost  by  removal  their  right  of  use  to  that  particular  tract.  They 
were  properly  the  ''official  artisans." 

if  Ixtlilxochitl  (Hist.  desChichim,"  cap.  XXXV,  p.  242).  Vedia  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  Vf,  p. 
195).  "This  had  to  be  four-hundred  of  their  measures  in  square  ('  encuadro,1  each 
side  long);  each  one  of  these  being  equal  to  three  castilian  rods.  .  .  ."  See  ''Art  of 
War"  (p.  'J44,  note  183).  "  The  rod"  (vara)  is  equal  to  2.7S2()!>  feet  English  ((iiiyot). 

77  From  "  tlatoca"  speakers,  or  "tlatoani"  speaker,  and  "thilli."  Simancus  .M.  S.  S. 
on  the  customs  of  succession  ("  Recueil  do  Pieces,  etc."  p.  22.'J).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill, 
lib.  IV,  cap.  XVII,  p.  138).  "There  were  other  kind,-  of  lands  that  were  attached  to 
the  lordship  (office!),  Mhich  they  called  of  the  lord*hip,  and  of  these  the  Lords  could 
nut  dispose,  and  rented  them  to  whom  they  pleased,  drawing  much  rent  from  them, 


421 

of  the  tribe,  and  it  remained  always  public  ground,  reserved  for 
the  same  purposes.78 

Both  of  these  kinds  were  often  comprised  in  one,  and  it  is  even 
not  improbable  that  the  first  one  may  have  been  but  a  variety  of 
the  general  tribute-lands  devoted  to  the  benefit  of  the  conquering 
confederates.  Still,  the  evidence  on  this  point  is  too  indefinite  to 
warrant  such  an  assumption. 

While  the  crops  raised  on  the  u  tecpan-tlalli ,"  as  well  as  on  the 
"  tlatoca-tlalli,"  were  consumed  exclusively  by  the  official  houses 
and  households  of  the  tribe,  the  soil  itself  which  produced  these 
crops  was  neither  claimed  nor  possessed  by  the  chiefs  themselves, 
or  their  descendants.  It  was  simply,  as  far  as  its  products  were 
concerned,  official  soil.79 

The  establishing  and  maintaining  of  these  areal  subdivisions 
was  very  simple  with  the  tribes  of  the  mainland,  since  they  all 
possessed  ample  territories  for  their  wants  and  for  the  require 
ments  of  their  organizations.  Their  soil  formed  a  contiguous 
unit.  It  was  not  so,  however,  with  the  Mexicans  proper.  With 
all  their  industry  in  adding  artificial  sod  to  the  patch  on  which 


spending  it  in  the  house  of  the  King.")  Ixtlilxochitl  (Ibid.  cap.  XXXV,  p.  242.  "In 
the  best  location  of  the  territory  there  was  set  off  a  field,  which  held  exactly  four  hun 
dred  measures  in  length  and  breadth.  This  was  called  Tlatocatlali  or  Tlatocamilli  that 
is:  land  or  plantation  of  the  Lord,  and  also  Itonal  Yutlacal,  or  lands  on  which  the  in 
habitants  are  compelled  to  work."')  Oviedo  (Lib.  XXXIII,  cap.  II,  p.  537).  Veytia, 
(Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  195,  confirms  Ixtlilxochitl  almost  verbally, adding:  "For  the  sow 
ing  and  cultivation  of  these  the  ealpixque,  which  was  an  officer  of  the  community  in 
each  pueblo,  daily  designated  those  who  had  to  attend  to  it,  out  of  the  plebeians  and 
tributaries,  and  all  the  crops  went  to  the  Lord  for  the  maintenance  of  his  house  ('ca- 
sa'  family)."  Zurita  does  not  use  the  term  which  we  have  adopted,  because  he  is 
chiefly  struck  by  the  communal  tenure,  as  exhibited  in  the  "  calpulalli."  The  fact  of 
their  being  communal  land,  though  set  off  for  a  special  purpose,  and  not  gwned  by  the 
chiefs,  is  plain. 

78  Veytia  (Lib.  IK,  cap.  VI,  p.  195).    It  is  superfluous  to  revert  to  the  erroneous  im 
pression,  that  the  chiefs  might  dispose  of  it. 

79  "  Patrimonial  Estates"  are  mentioned  frequently,  but  the  point  is,  where  are  they 
to  be  found.    Neither  the  "  tecpantlalli"  nor  the  "tlatoca-tlalli,"  still  less  the  *'  calpu 
lalli,"  show  an}-  trace  of  individual  ownership.    "  Eredad"  (heirloom)  is  called  indis 
criminately  "  milli"  and  "  cuemitl "  (Molina  Parte  la,  p.  57).    The  latter  is  also  rendered 
as  "  tierra  labrada,  6  camellon  "  (Molina,  Parte  Ho.  p.  20).    It  thus  reminds  us  of  the 
"  chinamitl  "  or  garden-bed  (as  the  name '*  camellon"  also  implies),  and  reduces  it  to 
the  proportion  of  an  ordinary  cultivated  lot  among  the  others  contained  within  the 
area  of  the  calpulli.    It  is  also  called  '•  tlalli,"  but  that  is  the  general  name  for  soil  or 
ground.    "Tierras  o  eredades  de  partieulares,  juntas  en  alguna  vega,"  is  called  "  tlal- 
milli."    This  decomposes  into  "  tlalli "  soil,  and  "  milli."    But  "  vega  "  signifies  a  fertile 
tract  or  field,  and  thus  we  have  again  the  conception  of  communal  lands,  divided  into 
lots  improved  by  particular  families,  as  the  idea  of  communal  tenure  necessarily  im 
plies. 


422 

they  had  originally  settled,  the  solid  surface  was  eventually  much 
too  small  for  their  numbers,  and  they  themselves  put  an  efficient 
stop  to  further  growth  thereof  by  converting,  as  we  have  seen  else 
where,  for  the  purpose  of  defence,  their  marshy  surroundings  into 
water-sheets,  through  the  construction  of  extensive  causeways.80 
While  the  remnants  of  the  original  "  tecpantlalli"  and  of  the 
"tlatocatlalli"  still  remained  visible  in  the  gardens,  represented 
to  us  as  purely  ornamental,  which  dotted  the  pueblo  of  Mexico,81 
the  substantial  elements  wherewith  to  fulfil  a  purpose  for  which 
they  were  no  longer  adequate  had,  in  course  of  time,  to  be  drawn 
from  the  mainland.  But  it  was  not  feasible,  from  the  nature  of 
tribal  condition,  to  extend  thither  by  colonization.  The  soil  was 
held  there  by  other  tribes,  whom  the  Mexicans  might  well  over 
power  and  render  tributary,  but  whom  they  could  not  incorporate, 
since  the  kinships  composing  these  tribes  could  not  be  fused  with 
their  own.  -Outposts,  however,  were  established  on  the  shores,  at 
the  outlets  of  the  dykes,  at  Tepeyacac  on  the  north,  at  Iztapalapan, 
Mexicaltzinco,  and  at  Huitzilopochco  to  the  south,  but  these  were 
only  military  positions,  and  beyond  them  the  territory  proper  of  the 
Mexicans  never  extended.82  Tribute,  therefore,  had  to  furnish  the 
means  for  sustaining  their  governmental  requirements  in  the  matter 
of  food,  and  the  tribute  lands  had  to  be  distributed  and  divided, 
so  as  to  correspond  minutely  to  the  details  of  their  home  organiza 
tion.  For  this  reason  we  see,  after  the  overthrow  of  the  Tecpa- 
necas,  lands  assigned  apparently  to  the  head  war-chiefs,  to  the 
military  chiefs  of  the  quarters,  "from  which  to  derive  some  reve 
nue,  for  their  maintenance  and  that  of  their  children."83  These 

8"  "  Art  of. War  »  (pp.  150  and  151).  L.  H.  Morgan  ("  Ancient  Society,"  Part  II,  cap. 
VII,  pp.  190  and  191). 

81Humboldt(*'  Essai  politique  sur  la  Nonvelle  Espagne,"  vol.  II,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  VIII, 
p.  50).  Nearly  all  the  old  authors  describe  the  public  buildings  as  surrounded  by 
pleasure-grounds,  or  ornamental  gardens.  It  is  very  striking  that,  the  pueblo  having 
been  founded  in  1325,  and  nearly  a  century  having  been  spent  in  adding  sufficient 
artificial  sod  to  the  originally  small  solid  expanse  settled,— the  Mexicans  could  have 
been  ready  so  soon  to  establish  purely  decoi-ative  parks  within  an  area,  every  inch  of 
which  was  valuable  to  them  for  subsidence  alone  1 

"The  Mexican  tribe  proper  clustered  exclusively  within  the  pueblo  of  Tenuchtitlan. 
The  settlements  at  Iztapalapan,  Huitzilopochco  and  Mexicaltzinco  were  but  military 
stations  — outworks,  guarding  the  issues  of  the  causeways  to  the  South.  Tepeyacac 
(Guadalupe  Hidalgo)  was  a  similar  position,— unimportant  as  to  population,— in  the 
North.  Chapultepec  was  a  sacred  spot,  not  inhabited  by  any  number  of  people,  and 
only  held  by  the  Mexicans  for  burial  purposes,  and  on  account  of  the  springs  furnishing 
fresh  water  to  their  pueblo. 

83  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  XV,  p.  24).    See  note  57. 


423 

tracts  were  but  "official  tracts,"  and  they  were  apart  from  those 
reserved  for  the  special  use  of  the  kinships.  The  latter  may  have 
furnished  that  general  tribute  which,  although  given  nominally  to 
the  head  war-chief  still  was,  "for  all  the  Mexicans  in  common."84 

The  various  classes  of  lands  which  we  have  mentioned  were,  as 
far  as  their  tenure  is  concerned,  included  in  the  "calpulalli"  or 
lands  of  the  kinships.  Since  the  kin,  or  "calpulli,"  was  the  unit  of 
governmental  organization,  it  also  was  the  unit  of  landed  tenure. 
Clavigero  sa}-s  :  "The  lands  called  altepetlalli,  that  is  :  those  who 
belonged  to  the  communities  of  the  towns  and  villages,  were 
divided  into  as  many  parts  as  there  were  quarters  in  a  town,  and 
each  quarter  held  its  own  for  itself,  and  without  the  least  connection 
with  the  rest.  Such  lands  could  in  no  manner  be  alienated."85 
These  "  quarters"  were  the  "  Calpulli,"  hence  it  follows  that  the  con 
sanguine  groups  held  the  "altepetlalli"  or  Soil  of  the  tribe.86 

We  have,  therefore,  in  Mexico,  the  identical  mode  of  tenure  of 
lands,  which  Polo  de  Ondogardo  had  noted  in  Peru  and  reported 

to  the  king  of  Spain  as  follows :  " although  the  crops  and 

other  produce  of  these  lands  were  devoted  to  the  tribute,  the  land 
itself  belonged  to  the  people  themselves.  Hence  a  thing  will  be 
apparent  which  has  not  hitherto  been  properly  understood.  When 
airy  one  wants  land,  it  is  considered  sufficient  if  it  can  be  shown 
that  it  belonged  to  the  Inca  or  to  the  sun.  But  in  this  the  Indians 
are  treated  with  great  injustice.  For  in  those  days  they  paid  the 
tribute,  and  the  land  was  theirs "87 

The  expanse  held  and  occupied  by  the  calpulli,  and  therefore 
called  calpulalli,"  was  possessed  by  the  kin  in  joint  tenure.88  It 

s*  Tezozomoc  (Cap.  X,  p.  18).  Zurita  ("  Rapport,  etc.,"  p.  227).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib. 
IV,  cap.  XVII,  p.  138.  "i  no  era  en  mano  del  Seiior  disponer  de  estos  Tributes  a  su 
voluntad,  porque  se  alteraba  la  Gente,  i  los  Principales."  This  refers  specially  to  the 
tribute  by  quarters  '•  barrios.") 

ss  Storia  del  Messico  "  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV). 

soixtlilxochitl  ("Histoire  des  Chichim.,"  Cap.  XXXV,  p.  212).  Torquemada  (Lib. 
XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545). 

87 ''Narratives  of  the  Kites  and  Laws  of  the  Yncas,  translated  from  the  original 
Spanish  manuscripts,  and  edited  by  Clement  R.  Markham."  Publication  of  the  "  Hack- 
luyt  Society,"  1873.  "Report  of  Polo  de  Ondegardo"  who  was  "Regidor"  of  Cuzco, 
in  15GO;  and  a  very  important  authority  (See  Prescott,  "History  of  the  Conquest  of 
Peru,"  note  to  Book  I,  cap.  V).  Confirmed  by  Garcia  ("  El  Origen  de  los  Indies,"  Lib. 
IV,  cap.  XVI,  p.  162). 

88  Zurita  (•'  Rapport,  etc.,  etc.,  p.  50).  "  The  chiefs  of  the  second  class  are  yet  called 
Calpullec  in  the  singular  and  Chinancallec  in  the  plural.  (This  is  evidently  incorrect, 
since  the  words  "Calpulli"  and  "Chinancalli"  can  easily  be  distinguished  from  each 
other.  "  Chinancalli,"  however,  after  Molina  means  "  cercado  de  seto"  (Parte  IIo,  p. 


424 

could  neither  be  alienated  nor  sold  ;  in  fact,  there  is  no  trace  ot 
barter  or  sale  of  land,  previous  to  the  conquest.89  If,  however,  any 
calpulli  weakened,  through  loss  of  numbers  from  any  cause  what 
ever,  it  might  farm  out  its  area  to  another  similar  group,  deriving 
subsistence  from  the  rent.90  If  the  kinship  died  out,  and  its  lands 
therefore  became  vacant,  then  they  were  either  added  to  those  of 
another  whose  share  was  not  adequate  for  its  wants,  or  they  were 
distributed  among  all  the  remaining  calpulli.91  The  calpulli  was 


21),  or  an  enclosed  area,  and  if  we  connect  it  with  the  old  original  "chinamitl"  we  are 
forcibly  carried  ba,ck  to  the  early  times,  when  the  Mexicans  but  dwelt  on  a  lew  Hakes  of 
more  or  less  solid  ground.  This  is  an  additional  evidence  in  favor  of  the  views  we  have 
taken,  of  the  growth  of  landed  tenure  among  the  Mexican  tribe.  We  must  never  forget, 
that  the  term  is  •'  Nahuatl  "  and  as  such  recognized  by  all  the  other  tribes,  outside  of  the 
Mexicans  proper.  The  interpretation  as  "  family  "  in  the  QQuiche  tongue  of  Guatemala, 
which  we  have  already  mentioned,  turns  up  here  as  of  further  importance),  th.  is  chiefs 
of  an  old  race  or  family,  from  the  word  Calpulli  or  Chinancalli,  which  is  the  same,  and 
signifies  a  quarter  (barrio),  inhabited  by  a  family  known,  or  of  old  origin,  which  pos 
sesses  since  long  time,  a  territory  whose  limits  are  known,  and  whose  members  are  of 
the  same  lineage."  "The  calpullis,  families  or  quarters,  are  very  common  in  each 
province.  Among  the  lands  which  were  given  to  the  chiefs  of  the  second  class,  there 
were  also  calpullis.  These  lands  are  the  property  of  the  people  in  general  ("  de  la 
masse  du  peuple")  from  the  time  the  Indians  reached  this  land.  Each  family  or  tribe 
received  a  portion  of  the  soil  for  perpetual  enjoyment.  They  also  had  the  name  of 
calpulli,  and  until  now  this  property  has  been  respected.  They  do  not  belong  to  each 
inhabitant  of  the  village  in  particular,  but  to  the  calpulli,  which  possesses  them 
in  common."  Don  Ramirez  de  Fuenleal,  letter  dated  Mexico,  3  Nov.  1532  (."  Recueil  de 
pieces,  etc.,  Ternaux-Compans,  p.  253).  "There  are  very  few  people  in  the  villages 
which  have  lands  of  their  own  ....  the  lands  are  held  in  common  and  cultivated  in 
common."  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  135)  confirms,  in  a  condensed  form, 
the  .statements  of  Zurita:  "and  they  are  not  private  lands  of  each  one,  but  held  in  com 
mon."  Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545).  Veytia(Lib.  Ill,  cap,  VI,  p.  1%). 
"  Finally  there  were  other  tracts  of  lands  in  each  tribe,  called  calpulalli,  which  is.  land 
of  the  calpules  (barrios),  which  also  were  worked  in  common."  Oviedo  (Lib.  XXXII, 
cap.  LI,  pp.  536  and  537).  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV7).  Bustamante  (" Tezcoco, 
etc.,"  Partc  Ilia.  cap.  V,  p.  232). 

89 Zurita  (p.  52).  '•  He  who  obtained  them  from  the  sovereign  has  not  the  right  to 
dispose  of  them."  HeiTera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  135),  "he  who  possessed 
them,  could  not  alienate  them,  although  he  enjoyed  their  use  for  his  lifetime."  Torque 
mada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545).  Disputes  about  lands  are  frequently  mentioned  but 
the}7  refer  to  the  enjoyment  and  possession,  and  not  the  transfer  of  the  land.  Baron 
Humboldt  ('•  Vues  des  Cordilleres  et  monuments  indigenes  des  peuples  de  1'  Ameriqtie," 
Vol.  I,  Tab.  V),  reproduces  a  Mexican  painting  representing  a  litigation  about  laud. 
But  this  painting  was  made  subsequent  to  the  conquest,  as  the  fact  that  the  parties 
contending  are  Indians  and  Spaniards  sufficiently  asserts.  Occasional  mention  is  made 
that  certain  lands  "could  be  sold."  All  such  tracts,  however,  like  the  "pillali"  have 
been  shown  by  us  to  be  held  in  communal  tenure  of  the  soil,  their  enjoyment  alone 
being  given  to  individuals  and  their  families. 

90  Zurita  (p.  !)3).    "In  case  of  need  it  was  permitted  to  farm  out  the  lands  of  a  cal 
pulli  to  the  inhabitants  of  another  quarter."    Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  p.  134). 
"  They  could  be  rented  out  to  another  lineage." 

91  Zurita  (p.  52).    "  When  a  family  dies  out,  its  lands  revert  to  the  calpulli,  and  the 
chief  distributes  them  among  such  members  of  the  quarter  as  are  most  in  need  of  it." 


425 

a  democratic  organization.  Its  business  lay  in  the  hands  of  elec 
tive  chiefs:  —  "old  men,"  promoted  to  that  dignity,  as  we  intend 
to  prove  in  a  subsequent  paper,  for  their  merits  and  experience, 
and  after  severe  religious  ordeals.  These  chiefs  formed  the  coun 
cil  of  the  kin  or  quarter,  but  their  authority  was  not  absolute  since 
on  all  important  occasions  a  general  meeting  of  the  kindred  was 
convened.92  The  council  in  turn  selected  an  executive,  the  "cal- 
pullec"  or  "chinancallec"  who,  in  war,  officiated  as  "  achcacauhtin" 
or  "teachcauhtin"  (elder  brother).93  —  This  office  was  for  life  or 
during  good  behavior.94  It  was  one  of  his  duties  to  keep  a  reck 
oning  of  the  soil  of  the  calpulli,  or  "calpulalli,"  together  with  a 
record  of  its  members,  and  of  the  areas  assigned  to  each  fam 
ily, —  and  to  note  also  whatever  changes  occurred  in  their  distribu 
tion.95  Such  changes,  if  unimportant,  might  be  made  by  him  ; 

92  Zurita  (pp.  60,  61,  62).    Ramirez  de  Fuenleal  ("Letter,  etc."  Ternaux-Compans,  p. 
249). 

93  Znvita  (p.  60).    "  The  calpulli  have  a  chief  taken  necessarily  from  among  the  tribe, 
he  must  be  one  of  the  principal  inhabitants,  an  able  man  who  can  assist  and  defend  the 
people.    The  election  takes  place  among  them.  .  .  .  The  office  of  this  chief  is  not  hered 
itary  ;  when  any  one  dies,  they  elect  in  his  place  the  most  respected  old  man.  .  .  .  If  the 
deceased  has  left  ft  son  who  is  able  the  choice  falls  upon  him,  and  a  relative  of  the 
former  incumbent  is  always  preferred  "  (Id.  pp.  50  and  222).    Simancas  M.  S.  S.  ("  De 
1'ordre  de  succession,  etc.;"  "Recueil,"  p.  225).    "As  to  the  mode  of  regulating  the 
jurisdiction  and  election  of  the  alcaldes  and  regidors  of  the  villages,  they  nominated 

men  of  note  who  had  the  title  of  achcacaulitin There  were  no  other  elections 

of  officers    .  .  ."    "  Art  of  War,  etc."  (pp.  119  and  120). 

»4  Zurita  (pp.  60  and  61).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  Lib.  IV,  cap.  XV,  cap.  125).  "  I  le  ele- 
gian  entre  si  y  teniau  por  maior." 

95  Zurita  (pp.  61  and  62).  "  This  chief  has  charge  of  the  lands  of  the  calpnlli.  It  is 
his  duty  to  defend  their  possession.  He  keeps  paintings  showing  the  tracts,  the  names 
of  their  holders,  the  situation,  the  limits,  the  number  of  men  tilling  them,  the  wealth  of 
private  individuals,  the  designations  of  such  as  are  vacant,  of  others  that  belong  to 
the  Spaniards,  the  date  of  donation,  to  whom  and  by  whom  they  were  given.  These 
paintings  he  constantly  renews,  according  to  the  changes  occurring,  and  in  this  they 
are  very  skilful."  It  is  singular  that  Motolinia,  in  his  "Epistola  proemial"  ("Col.  de 
Doc. :"  Icazbalceta,  Vol.  I,  p.  5),  among  the  five  "  books  of  paintings  "  which  he  says  the 
Mexicans  had,  makes  no  mention  of  the  above.  Neither  does  he  notice  it  in  his  letter 
dated Cholula 27 Aug.,  1554 ("Recueilde pieces, etc., "Ternaux-Compans).  Sahagun  (Lib. 
VIII,  cap.  XV,  p.  304)  says,  "  porque  primeramente  demandaban  la  pintura  en  que  es- 
taban  escritas  6  pintadas  las  causas,  como  hazieudas,  casas,  6  maizales  "  (Id.  cap.  XXV, 
p.  314).  This  tends  to  prove  the  existence  of  such  paintings.  Mendieta  (Lib.  II, .cap. 
XXVII,  p.  1.35).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VIII,  p.  546),  "and  in  order  to  prevent 
any  confusion  in  these  lands  they  painted  them  on  long  strips  ("lienzos")  in  the  fol 
lowing  manner.  The  lands  of  the  calpules  light  yellow,  those  of  the  principals  fiesh- 
red,  and  the  lands  of  the  Kings  income  of  a  fiery  red  color,— so  that,  on  opening  one 
of  these  rolls,  the  entire  pueblo,  its  limits  and  outlines  could  be  seen  at  a  glance."  This 
is  another  confirmation  of  our  views  about  the  distribution  of  the  soil,  and  the  fact 
that  the  two  latter  classes  had  but  different  shades  of  red,  is  somewhat  significant. 
See  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV),  who  confirms.  The  explanation  of  Zurita  covers 
the  whole  ground,  however,  and  explains  both  of  the  last  statements. 


426 

more  important  ones,  or  contested  cases,  had  to  be  referred  to  the 
council  of  the  kinship,  which  in  turn  often  appealed  to  a  gathering 
of  the  entire  quarter.96 

The  "calpulalli"  was  divided  into  lots  or  arable  beds,  "tlal- 
milli."97  These  were  assigned  each  to  one  of  the  married  males 
of  the  kinship,  to  be  worked  by  him  for  his  use  and  that  of  his 
family.  If  one  of  these  lots  remained  unimproved  for  the  term 
of  two  consecutive  years,  it  fell  back  to  the  quarter  for  redistribu 
tion.  The  same  occurred  if  the  family  enjoying  its  possession 
removed  from  the  calpulli.  But  it  does  not  appear  that  the  cul 
tivation  had  always  to  be  performed  by  the  holders  of  the  tract 
themselves.  The  fact  of  improvement  under  the  name  of  a  cer 
tain  tenant  was  only  required,  to  insure  this  tenant's  rights.98 

Therefore  the  chiefs  and  their  families,  although  they  could  not, 
from  the  nature  of  their  duties,  till  the  land  themselves,  still  could 
remain  entitled  to  their  share  of  "tlalmilpa,"  as  members  of  the 
calpulli.  Such  tracts  were  cultivated  by  others  for  their  use. 
They  were  called  by  the  specific  name  of  "pillali"  (lands  of  the 
chiefs  or  of  the  children,  from  "piltontli"  boy,  or  "piltzintli," 


"oZurita  ("Rapport,  etc.,"  pp.  56  and  62).    We  quote  him  in  preference,  since  no  other 
author,  known  to  us,  has  been  so  detailed. 

97  "  tlalmilli "  "  tierras,  a  heredades  de  particulars,  que  estan  juntas  en  alguna  vega  " 
(Molina,  Part  Ila,  p.  124). 

98  Each  family,  represented  by  its  male  head,  obtained  a  certain  tract  or  lot  for  culti 
vation  and  use,  Zurila  (p.  55).    "  The  party  (member  of  the  calpulli,  because  no  member 
of  another  one,  had  the  right  to  settle  within  the  area  of  it.    See  Id.  p.  5.'J),  who  has  no 
lands,  applies  to  the  chief  of  the  calpulli  who,  upon  the  advice  of  the  other  old  men, 
assigns  to  him  such  as  correspond  to  his  ability  and  wants.   These  lands  go  to  his  heirs 

"    Id.  (p.  56.)    "The  proprietor  who  did  not  cultivate  during  two  years,  either 

through  his  own  fault  or  through  negligence,  without  just  cause he  was  called 

upon  to  improve  them,  and  if  he  failed  to  do  so,  they  were  given  to  another  the  follow 
ing  year."    Bustamante  ("Tezcoco,  etc.,"  Parte  III«,  p.  190,  cap.  I).    The  fact,  that 
any  holder  of  a  "  tlalmilli"  might  rent  out  his  share,  if  he  himself  was  occupied  in  a 
line  precluding  him  from  actual  work  on  it,  results  from  the  lands  of  the  "  calpulli  "  being 
represented  alternately  treated  as  communal,  and  again  as  private  lands.    Besides, 
it  is  said  of  the  traders  who,  from  the  nature  of  their  occupation,  were  mostly  absent, 
that  they  were  also  members  and  participants  of  a  "  calpulli "  (Zurita,  p.  223.    Sahagun 
Lib.  VIII,  cap.  Ill,  p.  349).    Now,  as  every  Mexican  belonged  to  a  kinship,  which  held 
lands  after  the  plan  exposed  above,  it  follows  that  such  as  were  not  able  to  work  them 
selves,  on  account  of  their  performing  other  duties  subservient  to  the  interests  of  the 
community,  still  preserved  their  tracts  by  having  others  to  work  them  for  their  benelit. 
It  was  not  the  right  of  tenancy  which  authorizes  the  improvement,  but  the  fact  of  im 
provement  for  a  certain  purpose  and  benefit,  which  secured  the  possession  or  tenancy. 


427 

child),99  and  those  who  cultivated  them  carried  the  appellation  of 
"tlalmaitl"  — hands  of  the  soil.100 

The  "  tlalmilpa,"  whether  held  by  chiefs  or  by  ordinary  members 
of  the  kin  ("macehuales")  were,  therefore,  the  only  tracts  of  land 
possessed  for  use  by  individuals  in  ancient  Mexico.  They  were 
so  far  distinguished  from  the  "tecpantlalli"  and  "tlatocatlalli"  in 
their  mode  of  tenure  as,  whereas  the  latter  two  were  dependent 


"It  is  just  the  "pillali"  which  oppose  the  greatest  difficulties  to  this  investigation, 
and  to  a  clear  conception  of  the  mode  of  tenure  of  lands  in  ancient  Mexico.  They  are 
generally  represented  (whenever  mentioned),  as  private  domains  of  the  chiefs.  Tor- 
quemada  (Lib.  XIV,  pp.  545  and  54(>),  distinguishes  two  kinds  of  "  pillali."  The  first 
one  he  says  might  be  sold. —  but  lie  places  the  restriction  upon  them,  that  such  as  held 
lands  through  conquest  ("  sujecion")  or  through  gift.  ("  merced  ")  of  the  chief,  had  to 
go  to  the  descendants,  as  majorat;  and  if  they  died  without  heirs,  the  King,  or  Lord 
became  such,  and  they  were  incorporated  into  his  royal  Estates."  The  other  kind  was 
not  transmissible  at  all.  Clavigero  (Lib.  XVII,  cap.  XIV).  We  notice  here  a  confusion, 
between  official  tracts  and  such  lots  of  the  "  calpulli "  as  pertained  to  the  chief's  family 
in  consequence  of  their  membership  of  the  Kin.  Also  between  "tribute-lots"  and 
the  official  tracts,  of  conquered  tribes.  Torquemada  acknowledges,  that  the  "  pillali," 
upon  the  death  of  the  family,  were  incorporated  in  the  calpulli  to  which  that  family 
belonged,  ''in  order  that  they  might  pay  tribute."  This  ought  to  define  their  true 
position  and  nature. 

100  From  "  tlalli "  soil,  and  "  maitl "  hand.  Hands  of  the  soil.  Molina  (Parte  Ha,  p. 
124),  has  :  "  tlalmaitl"  —  "  labrador,  6  gaiian."  This  name  is  given  in  distinction  of  the 
"macehuales"  or  people  working  the  soil  in  general.  The  tlalmaites  are  identical 
with  the  "  mayeques."  See  Zurita  (p.  224),  "tlalmaites  or  mayeques,  which  signifies 
tillers  of  the  soil  of  others  .  .  .  ."  He  distinguishes  them  plainly  from  the  "teccallec" 
which  are  the  "  tecpanpouhque  "  or  "  tecpautlacti "  formerly  mentioned  as  attending  to 
a  class  of  official  lands  (p.  221,  Zurita).  Herrera  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XVII,  p.  138). 
"  These  mayeques  could  not  go  from  one  tract  to  another,  neither  leave  those  which 
they  cultivated,  and  they  paid  a  rent  to  its  masters  according  as  they  agreed  upon  ("en 
lo  que  se  concertaban  ")  in  what  they  raised.  They  paid  tribute  to  nobody  else  but  the 
master  of  the  land."  This  tends  to  show  that  there  existed,  not  an  established  obliga 
tion,  a  serfdom,  but  a  voluntary  contract,  that  the  "tlalmaites"  were  not  serfs,  but 
simply  renters.  Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545),  "  .  .  .  .  those  that  were 
knights  (••  caballeros")  and  descendants  of  the  families  of  the  Kings,  and  Lords,  had 
their  particular  lands  and  their  rentals,  where  many  of  them  held  renters  ("terrazgu- 
eros")  which  served  them,  tilled  the  crops  and  served  them  in  their  houses.  These 
lands  were  called  pillali  or  "  land  of  nobles  and  knights."  We  prefer  the  etymology 
'•piltontli"  "niiio  6  nifia,  muchacho  6  muchacha"  (Molina,  II,  p.  82),  or  "piltzintli" 
nino  6  niiia"  therefore  lands  of  the  children,— to  the  derivation  from  "pilli."  The 
title  of  chief  was  "tecuhtli,"  and  the  word  "pilli"  substituted  for  it  is  certainly  but  in 
connection  with  the  occupation  of  a  particular  place  of  office,  and  not  a  title  itself. 
Bustamante  ("Tezcoco,  etc.,"  p,  330.  "The  sovereigns  as  well  as  the  inferior  Lords 
and  other  principals  had  their  own  patrimonial  estates,  and  in  them  their  mayeqnes  or 
Tlalmayes,  what  these  gave  of  rent  were  tributes  of  the  Lord,"  Id.  pp.  233  and  234). 

The  "  tlalmaites  "  appear  to  have  been  free  from  other  tributes,  and  free  from  com 
munal  labor  outside  of  the  "pillali"  (Bustamante,  p.  233.  Herrera,  Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV, 
cap.  XVII,  p.  138).  It  is  not  very  clear,  however,  whether  this  applies  simply  to  the 
conquering  tribe  alone,  or  also  to  the  tlalmaites  of  conquered  tribes,  as  towards  the 
tribute  due  by  that  tribe  to  their  conquerors.  The  detailed  relations  between  the  two 
are  yet  somewhat  obscure  and  confuse  in  some  points. 


428 

from  a  certain  office,  the  incumbent  of  which  changed  at  each  elec 
tion,  the  "tlalmilli"  was  assigned  to  a  certain  family,  and  its  pos 
session,  therefore,  connected  with  customs  of  inheritance.101 

Being  thus  led  to  investigate  the  customs  of  Inheritance  of  the 
ancient  Mexicans,  we  have  to  premise  here,  that  the  personal 
effects  of  a  deceased  can  be  but  slight^  considered.  The  rule  was 
in  general,  that  whatever  a  man  held,  descended  to  his  off 
spring.102  Among  most  of  the  northern  Indians  a  larger  cluster 
participated.103  In  conformity  with  the  organization  of  Society 
based  upon  kin,  when  in  the  first  stage  of  its  development,  the 
kindred  group  inherited,  and  the  common  ancestor  of  this  kin 
being  considered  a  female,  it  follows  that  if  a  man  died,  not  his 
children,  still  less  his  wife,  but  his  mother's  descendants,  that  is : 
his  brothers,  sisters,  in  fact  the  entire  consanguine  relationship 
from  which  he  derived  on  his  mother's  side,  were  his  heirs.104 
Such  may  have  been  the  case  even  among  the  Muysca  of  New- 


*» Ramirez  de  Fnenleal  ("Letter,"  see  "Recueil.  etc.,"  p.  253).  "De  1'  ordre  de 
succession,  etc.,  etc."  SimancasMSS.  (Id.  p.  224).  Hen-era  (Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap.  XVII, 
p.  138).  ,Torquemada  (Lib.  XIV,  cap.  VII,  p.  545).  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV). 
These  anthors  mention  only  the  "  pillali,"  but  Motolinia  (Trat.  II,  cap.  V,  pp.  120  and 
121),  and  Gomara  (Vedia  I,  p.  434),  apply  it  in  general,  and  the  latter  is  even  very  posi 
tive  about  the  tributaries  (•'  los  pecheros.")  Also  Zurita  (p.  56),  although  contradictory 
on  p.  51). 

102  Motolinia  (Tratado  II,  cap.  V,  p.  120),  "but  they  left  their  houses  and  lands  to 
their  children  .  .  ."  Gomara  (p.  434).    "Es  costumbre  de  pecheros  que  el  hijo  mayor 
herede  al  padre  en  toda  la  hacienda  raiz  y  mueble,  y  que  tenga  y  mantenga  todos  los  her- 
manos  y  sobrinos,  con  tal  que  hagan  ellos  lo  qne  el  les  mandare."    Clavigero  (Lib.  VII, 
cap.  XIII).    "In  Mexico  and  nearly  the  entire  realm,  the  royal  family  excepted  as 
already  told,  the  sons  succeeded  to  the  father's  rights,— and  if  there  were  no  sons, 
then  the  brothers,  and  the  brothers  sons  inherited."  /Bustamante  (''Tezcoco,  etc..1'  p. 
219).    In  all  these  cases,  Bustamante  only  speaks  of  chiefs;  but  the  quotations  from 
Motolinia.  and  Gomara  directly  apply  to  the  people  in  general. 

103  Mr.  L.  H.  Morgan  has  investigated  the  customs  of  inheritance,  not  only  among 
the  northern  Indians,  but  also  among  the  pueblo  Indians  of  New  Mexico.    He  establishes 
the  fact,  that  the  *•  kinship  "  or  "  Gens,"  which  we  may  justly  consider  as  the  unit  of  or 
ganization  in  American  Aboriginal  Society,  participated  in  the  property  of  the  deceased. 
He  proves  it  among  the  Iroquois  ("  Ancient  Society,"  Part  II,  cap.  II»  pp.  75  and  70). 
Wyandottes,  Id.cap.  VII,  p.  153.  Missouri-tribes,  p.  155.   Winnebagoes,  p.  157.  Mandans, 
p.  158.    Minnitarees,  p.  159.    Creeks,  p.  161.    Choctas,  p.  1<>2.    Chickasas,  p.  163.    Ojib- 
was,  p.  167;  also  Potowattomies  and  Crees,  Miamis,  p.  168.    Shawnees,  p.  !«{>.    Sauks, 
Foxes  and  Menominies,  p.  170.    Delawares,  p.  172.    Munsees  and  Mohegans,  p.  173. 
Finally,  the  pueblo  Indians  of  New  Mexico  are  shown  to  have,  if  not  the  identical  at 
least  a  similar  mode  of  inheritance.    It  would  be  easy  to  secure  further  evidence,  from 
South  America  also. 

io4"  Ancient  Society"  (Part  II,  cap.  II,  p.  75.  Part  IV,  cap.  I,  pp.  528,  530,  531,  536 
and  537). 


429 

Granada.105  It  was  different,  however,  in  Mexico,  where  we  meet 
with  traces  of  a  decided  progress.  Not  only  had  descent  been 
changed  to  the  male  line,106  but  heirship  was  limited,  to  the  exclu 
sion  of  the  kin  and  of  the  agnates  themselves,  to  the  children  of 
the  male  sex.107  Whatever  personal  effects  a  father  left,  which  were 
not  offered  up  in  sacrifice  at  the  ceremonies  of  his  funeral,108  they 
were  distributed  among  his  male  offsprings,  and  if  there  were  none, 
they  went  to  his  brothers.  Females  held  nothing  whatever,  beyond 
their  wearing  apparel  and  some  few  ornaments  for  personal  use. 

The  "tlalmilli"  itself,  at  the  demise  of  a  father,  went  to  his 
oldest  son,  with  the  obligation  to  improve  it  for  the  benefit  of  the 
entire  family  until  the  other  children  had  been  disposed  of  by 
marriage.109  But  the  other  males  could  apply  to  the  chief  of  the 
calpulli  for  a  "  tlalmilli "  of  their  own:110  the  females  went  with 

105  Gomara  ("Historia  de  las  Indies,"  Vedia  I,  p.  201).  Garcia  ("Origen  de  los 
Indies,"  Lib.  IV,  cap.  23,  p.  247).  Piedrahita  (Parte  1,  lib.  I,  cap.  6,  p.  27).  Joaquin 
Acosta  O'Compendio  historico  del  Descubrimients  y  Colonisazion  de  la  Nueva-Granada," 
Cap.  XI,  p.  201).  Ternaux-Compans  ("  L'ancien  Cundinamarra,"  pp.  21  and  38). 

"«  Motolinia  (Trat.  II,  cap.  V,  p.  120).  Gomara  (p.  434).  Clavigero  (Lib.  VII,  cap. 
XIII).  Znrita  (pp.  12  and  43). 

107  Letter  of  Motolinia  and  Diego  d'Olartc,  to  Don  Luis  de  Velasco,  Cholnla,  27  Aug., 
1554  ("  Recueil,  etc.,  etc.,"  p.  407).    "  The  daughters  did  not  inherit,  it  was  the  principal, 
wile's  son  .  .  .  ."    Besides,  nearly  every  author  designates  but  a  son,  or  sons,— as  the 
heirs.    There  is  no  mention  made  ot  daughters  at  all.    In  Tlaxcallan,  it  is  also  expressly 
mentioned  that  the  daughters  did  not  inherit  (Torquemada,  Lib.  XI,  cap.  XXII,  p.  348). 
In  general,  the  position  of  woman  in  ancient  Mexico  was  a  very  inferior  one,  and  but 
little  above  that  which  it  occupies  among  Indians  in  general.    (Compare  the  description 
of  Gomara,  p.  440.    Vedia  I,  with  those  of  Sahagun.    Lib.  X,  cap.  I,  p.  1;  cap.  XIII,  pp. 
30,  31,  32  and  33.    The  fact  is  generally  conceded).    H.  H.  Bancroft,  "Native  Races." 
Vol.  II.  Cap.  VI,  p.  224,  etc. 

108  Motolinia  (Trat.  II,  cap.  V,  p.  120).    Torquemada  (Lib.  XIII,  cap.  XLII  to  XLVIII, 
pp.  515  to  529).    Acosta  (Lib.  V,  cap.  VIII,  pp.  320,  321  and  322).    Gomara  (pp.  43(5  and 
437.  Vedia,  I).    Memlieta  (Lib.  II,  cap  XL,  pp.  162  and  103).    Clavigero  (Lib.  VI,  cap. 
XXXIX.    "They  burnt  the  clothes,  arrows,  and  a  portion  of  the  household  utensils 
") 

i™  Motolinia  (Trat.  II,  cap.  V,  p.  120),  "  el  cual  hacer  de  testamento  no  se  acostum- 
braba  en  esta  tierra,  sino  que  dejaban  las  casas  y  heredades  a  sus  hijos,  y  el  mayor,  si- 
era  hombre,  lo  poseia  y  tenia  cuidado  de  sus  hermanos  y  Hermanns,  y  yendo  los  her. 
manos  creciendo  y  casandose,  el  hermano  mayor  partia  con  ellos  segun  tenia;  y  si  los 
hijos  eran  por  casar,  entrabanse  en  la  hacienda  los  mismos  hermanos,  digo  en  las  her 
edades,  y  de  ellas  mantenian  a  sus  sobrinos  y  de  la  olra  hacienda."  Gomara  (•'  Conq. 
de  Mejico,"  p.  434).  "  It  is  customary  among  tributary  classes  that  the  oldest  son  shall 
inherit  the  father's  property,  real  and  personal,  and  shall  maintain  and  support  all  the 
brothers  and  nephews,  provided  they  do  what  he  commands  them.  The  reason  why 
they  do  not  partition  the  estates  is  in  order  not  to  decrease  it  through  such  a  partition 

"  Simancas  M.S.S  ("  Recueil,  etc., etc.,"  p.  224).  "Relative  to  the  calpulalli  .  . 

.  .  the  sons  mostly  inheritecV 

110  Zurita  (p.  55).  "  He  who  has  no  land  applies  to  the  chief  of  the  tribe  (calpulli), 
who,  upon  the  advice  of  the  other  old  men,  assigns  to  him  a  tract  suitable  for  his  wants, 
and  corresponding  to  his  abilities  and  to  his  strength."  Herrera.(Dec.  Ill,  lib.  IV,  cap. 
XV,  p.  135). 


430 

their  husbands.  Single-blessedness,  among  the  Mexicans,  appears 
to  have  occurred  only  in  case  of  .religious  vows,  and  in  which  case 
they  fell  back  for  subsistence,  upon  the  part  allotted  to  worship, 
or  in  case  of  great  infirmities,  for  which  the  calpulli  provided.111 
No  mention  is  made  of  the  widow  participating  in  the  products  of 
the  "  tlalmilli,"  still  it  is  presumable  that  she  was  one  of  those  whom 
the  oldest  son  had  to  support.  There  are  indications  that  the 
widow  could  remarry,  in  which  case  her  husband,  of  course,  pro 
vided  for  her.112 

The  customs  of  Inheritance,  as  above  reported,  were  the  same 
with  chiefs  as  well  as  with  the  ordinary  members  of  the  tribe.  Of 
the  personal  effects  very  little  remained  since,  the  higher  the  office 
was  which  the  deceased  had  held,  the  more  display  was  made  at 
his  cremation,  and  consequently  the  more  of  his  dresses,  weapons 
and  ornaments,  were  burnt  with  the  body.113  Of  lands,  the  chiefs 
only  held  each  their  "tlalmilli"  in  the  usual  way,  as  members  of 
their  kin,  whereas  the  other  "  official"  lots  went  to  the  new  incum 
bents  of  the  offices.  It  should  always  be  borne  in  mind,  that  none 
of  these  offices  were  hereditary  themselves.  Still,  a  certain  "  right 
of  succession"  is  generally  admitted  as  having  existed.  Thus,  with 
the  Tezcucans,  the  office  of  head  war-chief  might  pass  from  father 
to  son,114  at  Mexico  from  brother  to  brother,  and  from  uncle  to 
nephew.115  This  might,  eventually,  have  tended  -to  perpetuate  the 

111  Such  unmarried  females  were  the  "  nuns  "  frequently  mentioned  by  the  old  writers. 
We  shall  have  occasion  to  investigate  the  point  in  our  paper  on  "  the  ancient  Mexican 
priesthood."    As  attendants  to  worship,  they  participated  in  the  tributes  furnished 
towards  it  by  each  calpulli,  of  which  we  have  spoken. 

112  Oviedo  ("  Hist.  gen.  y  nat.  de  Indias,"  Lib.  XXXIII,  cap.  LIV.  pp.  547-533),  reports 
a  conversation  with  Don  Juan  Cano,  held  at  San  Domingo,  8  of  Sept.,  1514,  in  which 
the  said  Cano  asserts  that  he  married  Montezuma's  daughter,  widow  of  Quauhtemotzin. 
There  is  an  indeiinite  report  that,  when  she  married  Quauhtemotzin,  she  was  already 
the  widow  of  Cuitlahuatzin.    Intermarriage  of  widowers  and  widows   took  place  in 
Yucatan,  but  without  any  ceremony.    See  Landa,  "  Relaciou  de  las  cosas  de  Yucatan." 
Paris,  18U5,  by  Mr.  Brasseur  de  Bourbourg,  p.  142,  §XXV. 

113  See  note  No.  108,  the  same  quotations  apply  to  this  cafe.    Besides,  we  refer  to  the 
numerous  descriptions  of  funeral  rites,  or  rather  cremations,  contained,  for  instance, 
in  Durai,  Tezozomoc,Ixtlilxochitl,  Veytia,and  in  Bustamantes"  Tezcocoen  los  I'ltimos 
Tiernpos,  etc."    Also  to  the  cremation  of  the  head  chief  of  Michhuacan,  a.s  related  by 
Mendieta  (Lib.  II,  cap.  XLL  pp.  1(54-107).    We  abstain  from  special  quotations,  the  sub 
ject  being  amply  discussed  in  all  the  authors  just  mentioned. 

"*Zurita  (p.  12).  Gomara  (Vedia  I,  p.  434).  Torquernada  (Lib.  IX,  cap.  IV,  p.  177. 
Lib.  XI,  cap.  27,  p.  35(i,  etc.  etc.). 

115 This  fact  is  too  amply  proven  to  need  special  references.  We  reserve  it  for  final 
discussion  in  our  proposed  paper  on  the  chiefs  of  the  Mexicans,  and  the  duties,  powers 
and  functions  of  their  office. 


431 

office  in  the  family,  and  with  it  also  the  possession  of  certain  lands, 
attached  to  that  officer's  functions  and  duties.  But  it  is  quite 
certain  too  that  this  stage  of  development  had  not  yet  been 
reached  by  any  of  the  tribes  of  Mexico  at  the  time  of  its  conquest 
by  the  Spaniards.  The  principal  idea  had  not  yet  been  developed, 
namely,  that  of  the  domain,  which,  in  eastern  countries  at  least, 
gradually  segregated  into  individually  hereditary  tenures  and 
ownerships. 

There  was  consequently,  at  the  time  when  the  Spaniards  first 
came  into  contact  with  the  Mexican  aborigines,  no  established 
feudal  system  among  the  Indians  of  Mexico.  Based  exclusively 
upon  kin,  aboriginal  society  then  presented  to  the  first  Europeans 
who  witnessed  it  a  strange  and  partly  dazzling,  partly  repulsive  ; 
at  all  events  a  bewildering,  aspect.  It  is  not  devoid  of  interest, 
and  it  is  even  important  for  us  to  consider  what  were  the  effects 
of  this  contact  of  a  people  imbued  with  the  principles  of  medieval 
feudality  with  tribes  still  adhering  to  far  more  primitive  ideas, 
upon  the  latter's  mode  of  tenure  and  distribution  of  their  lands. 

The  ostensible  basis,  en  which  the  Spaniards  established  a 
claim  to  any  parts  of  America  whatever,  is  expressed  in  the  Bull 
of  Pope  Alexander  VI,  executed  at  Rome  on  the  fourth  day  of 
May,  1493.  By  this  act  of  the  Holy  See  the  kings  of  Spain  (Ferdi 
nand  and  Isabella),  in  consideration  of  their  devotion  to  the  Cath 
olic  religion,  and  of  their  zeal  in  propagating  the  Christian  faith 
even  over  the  remotest  parts  of  the  earth's  surface,  are  made  and 
created  absolute  possessors,  for  themselves,  their  heirs  and  succes 
sors,  of  all  the  lands  already  discovered  and  still  to  discover  by 
them  or  their  agents  in  the  new  world.  The  conditions  accompany 
ing  this  grant  were  that  they  "  manage  to  send  to  the  said  main 
lands  and  islands  good  men,  fearing  God,  learned,  well  taught  and 
expert,  for  to  instruct  their  aforesaid  inhabitants  and  natives  in 
the  Catholic  faith,  and  to  teach  them  good  manners,  with  all  due 
diligence."116  This  title,  although  it  partakes  of  the  nature  of  a 

"e  Martin  Fernandez  de  Navarrete  ("  Coleccion  de  los  Viages  y  Descubrimientos  que 
hicieron  por  mar  los  Espanoles  desde  Fines  del  Siglo  XV,"  Madrid,  1825.  Tom.  IIo,  pp. 
2i,'-35).  "  Et  insupre  mandamus  vobis  in  virtnte  sanctae  obedintie,  est  (ficut  pollicemini 
et  non  dubitamus  pro  vestra  maxima  devotione  et  Regia  magnanimitate  vos  esse 
facturos)  ad  terras  flrmas  et  insulas  praedictas  viros  probo?,  et  Deum  timentes,  doctos, 
peritos  et  expertos  ad  instruendam  incolas  et  habitatores  praefatos  in  Fide  Catholica, 
et  in  bonis  moribus  imbumdam  destinare  debeatis,omnum  debitam  diligentiam  in  pra- 
emisis  adhibentes."  Mendieta  ("  Hist.  Eccles.  Ind.,"  Lib.  I,  cap.  Ill,  pp.  20  and  22). 
Herrera  (Dec.  I,  lib.  II,  cap.  IV,  p.  41).  Gomara  ('*  Hi.-storia  de  las  Indias,"  Vedia  I,  pp. 
168  and  169).  Oviedo  (Lib.  II,  cap.  VIII). 


432 

fief,  still  virtually  created, — what  his  subsequently  became  in  Span 
ish  America, — a  domain  of  the  Spanish  crown.  Armed  with  it,  and 
fully  convinced  of  its  validity,117  the  Spaniards  regarded  at  once 
the  soil  of  Mexico  as  their  king's  own,  and  therefore  claimed  the 
right  as  his  agents,  to  dispose  of  it  through  distribution  according 
to  their  home-laws  and  customs.  But,  instead  of  proclaiming  this 
title  at  once  after  the  landing,  as  was  done  on  many  other  points 
of  the  American  coast,118  Cortes  found  it  advisable  to  delay  such 
a  formal  declaration  until  after  he  had,  by  his  own  inspection,  sat 
isfied  himself  of  the  proper  ways  and  means  to  secure  possession. 
He  quickly  found  out  the  disconnected  state  of  the  countiy,  al 
though  he  attributed  it  to  causes  which  were  not  really  existing,119 
and  it  is  well  known  how  he  improved  it  for  his  plans.  He  there 
fore  treated  secret^,  as  much  as  possible,  with  members  of  tribes 
subjected  (or  rather  tributary)  to  the  Mexicans  and  their  confeder 
ates,120  and  in  consideration  of  their  espousing  the  Spanish  cause, 
he  promised  them  sundry  favors.121  The  oldest  document  issued 
by  Europeans  on  Mexican  soil  embodies  such  a  negotiation  with 
chiefs  of  the  tribes  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco,  both  pueblos 
being  situated  within  the  valley  of  Mexico  itself.12-  It  promises 


i" Hen-era  (Dec.  J,  lib.  II,  cap.  IV,  p.  41).  Oviedo  (Lib.  II,  cap.  VIII,  pp.  31  and  32). 
Gomara  ( Vedia  I,  p.  108).  Mendieta  (Lib.  I,  cap.  Ill,  pp.  18-20),  and  many  others.  All 
these  authorities  can  be  summed  up  in  Robertson's  classical  words:  "The  Pope,  as 
vicar  and  representative  of  JesuS  Christ,  was  supposed  to  have  a  right  of  dominion 
over  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  earth"  ("History  of  America,"  9th  Edition,  1800.  Vol.  I, 
Book  II,  p.  159).  It  appears  that  already  Grijalva  had,  in  1518,  taken  possession  form 
ally  of  the  Mexican  coast.  (Oviedo,  Lib.  XVII,  cap.  XV,  p.  525) 

"8  Herrera  (Dec.  I,  lib.  VII,  cap.  XIV,  pp.  197  and  198).  Robertson  (Vol.  I,  Book  III, 
p.  271 ;  also  note  XXIII,  p.  378). 

119  Cortes  supposed  a  Mexican  state  or  empire  and  his  measures  were  taken  in  conse 
quence.  ("Carta  Segunda,"  Vedia  I,  p.  12).  Gomara  ("  Conq.  de  Mejico,"  p.  313). 
Bernal-Diez  del  Castillo  ("Hist,  verd.  de  la  conq.  de  N.  Espafia,"  Vedia  II,  pp.  32  and 
33).  Oviedo  (Lib.  XXXIII,  cap.  II,  p.  201).  Torquemada  (Lib.  IV,  cap.  XVI,  pp.  386 
and  387),  etc.  etc. 

120Cortes  ("Carta  Segunda,"  Vedia  I,  pp.  13  and  15).  Bernal-Die/  (Vedia  II,  cap. 
XLI,  p.  30).  Oviedo  (Lib.  XXXIII.  cap.  II,  p.  201).  Andres  de  Tapia  ("  Col.  de  Docu- 
mentos,"  of  Icazbalceta,  Vol.  II,  pp.  501  and  502).  Gomara  ("Conq.  de  Mejie<>,"  Vedia, 
I,  p.  320).  But  the  main  evidence  is  furnished  by  the  document  published  by  Iraxbalceta, 
in  his  second  volume  of  the  "Coleccion  de  Documentos  para  la  lli-toria  de  Mexico," 
in  the  2d  volume,  and  entitled:  ''Real  Ejeeutoria  de  S.  M.  Sobre  Tierras  y  Reservas  de 
Pechos  y  Paga,  perteneciente  filos  Caciques  de  Axapusco,  delujurisdiccion  de  Otumba" 
(pp.  5.  0,  7,  8  and  9). 

121  "Real  Ejeeutoria"  (Col.  de  doc.  II,  p.  7).    Gomara  (Vedia  I,  p.  320).    Clavigero 
(Lib.  VIII,  cap.  XI). 

122  The  pueblos  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco  are  situated  along  the  road  leading 
from  the  city  of  Mexico  to  Tullanzinco,  in  the  state  of  .Mexico  proper,  northwest  «>f 
San  Juan  de  Teotihuacan.    As  the  Document  to  which  we  have  already  referred  ini- 


433 

to  those  chiefs  lands  of  their  own.  The  grantees  had  no  conception 
of  the  true  import  of  what  they  accepted,  neither  did  Cortes  con 
ceive  the  nature  of  their  ideas.  It  was  the  object  of  the  Indians 

plies,  they  were  under  Spanish  rule  included  in  the  jurisdiction  of  Otumba.  This  docu 
ment  itself  requires  particular  attention.  It  has  been  published  by  Sr.  Icazbalceta  in 
the  second  volume  of  his  documentary  collections,  and  its  authenticity  has  been  carefully 
examined— and,  we  think,  successfully  proven— by  Sr.  Jose  F.  Ramirez.  Its  history  is 
not  devoid  of  interest,  and  we  record  it  here,  partly  from  the  document  itself,  and  partly 
from  the  introduction  and  notes  by  the  late  Sr.  Ramirez. 

On  the  9th  day  of  March,  1017,  there  appeared  before  the  vicei-oy  of  New  Spain 
(Marques  of  Guadalcazar),  Leonardo  de  Salazar  "  in  the  name  of  the  governor,  alcalde 
and  fiscals"  of  the  pueblo  of  San  Esteban  Axapusco  and  Santiago  Tepeyahualco,  "of 
the  jurisdiction  of  Otumba,"  praying  for  a  confirmation  in  writing  by  the  viceroy,  of  a 
certain  grant  made  by  Cortes,  and  approved  by  the  King  and  his  royal  council  under 
seal, —  to  the  aforesaid  pueblos.  In  order  to  obtain  said  confirmation  it  was  alleged: 
that  the  grant,  written  on  "nine  leaves"  was  so  torn  and  damaged,  that  it  would 
DO  longer  bear  handling, —  and  that  through  its  loss  the  inhabitants  of  said  settlements 
might  come  to  grief.  The  petition  was  immediately  granted  and  it  was  ordained,  on 
the  19  of  March  1(517,  that  a  copy  of  the  original  grant  should  be  executed,  and  that 
in  such  places  where  the  text  was  torn  or  obliterated  through  damage  to  the  originals, 
common  belief  or  tradition  should  prevail  as  far  as  it  related  to  the  contents  of  the 
document  ("obre  la  fe  que  hubiere  lugar  en  derecho").  The  desired  copy  and  certifi 
cates  were  accordingly  issued  on  the  21st  day  of  March,  1(517. 

This  copy  embodies  the  mutilated  text  of  a  very  singular  official  paper.  It  appears 
from  it  that  on  the  20th  day  of  May  1519,  Cortes  executed,  in  favor  of  two  Indian  chiefs 
of  the  two  aforesaid  pueblos,  and  at  their  request,  a  certificate  (signed  by  himself  at 
San  Juan  de  Uliia  on  that  day  and  countersigned:  Pedro  Hernandez),  stating  that  the 
said  chiefs  had  joined  the  messengers  sent  from  Mexico  to  greet  and  espy  Cortes  upon 
his  arrival  at  the  coast,— with  the  intention  of  approaching  him  secretly  and  offering 
him  their  assistance  in  any  designs  he  might  have  against  the  Mexicans,  whom  they 
said  held  them  severely  to  tribute.  This  they  achieved,  and  took  allegiance  to  the  crown 
of  Spain.  In  return  Cortes  promised  to  them  that  "  after  our  journey  should  be  accom 
plished  to  them  should  in  the  first  place  be  made  the  greatest  honor  possible  in 

return  for  so  much  noble  subtility  and  good-will."  He  also  promised  "to  make  them 
grandees  and  Lords  of  lands  where  they  now  have  their  pueblos."  The  facts  thus  al 
leged  were  contained  in  the  original  document,  written  consequently  about  30  days  after 
the  landing  of  Cortes  on  the  coast  of  Vera  Cruz.  But  this  act  itself  was  included,  as  a 
copy,  in  a  further  grant,  dated  16  December,  1526,  in  which  Cortes  acknowledges  the 
services  rendered  by  the  two  chiefs  during  the  conquest  of  Mexico,  and  that  after  that 
pueblo  had  been  captured,  the  said  chiefs  returned  to  their  tribes  "  well  paid  with  the 
booty,"  relying  upon  the  fulfilment  of  his  original  promises.  It  further  states  that:  six 
years  having  elapsed  since,  and  to  most  of  the  chiefs  who  had  assisted  the  Spanish 
cause,  lands  had  been  given,  he  remembered  the  chiefs  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco, 
"  and  by  these  presents  in  the  royal  name  of  His  majesty  gave  them  four  tracts  ("  cu- 

atro  sitios  de  estancias  ") in  the  territory  of  their  said  pueblos."    These  lands 

were  freed  from  all  taxes  and  impositions,  and  the  chiefs  and  their  heirs  were  invested 
forever  with  the  lordship  and  the  office  of  governors  ("gobernadores")  of  the  pueblo 
to  which  they  belonged.  This  grant  of  Cortes  was  confirmed  by  the  Emperor  Charles 
V,  and  the  royal  council  of  the  Indies,  2d  November,  1537,  and  on  the  9  and  10  Februarv, 
1540,  the  said  chieftains  were  duly  installed  in  their  new  hereditary  positions,  and  their 
lands  measured  off  to  them. 

Doubts  were  raised  as  to  the  genuineness  of  the  document,  but  these  are  set  aside 
completely  by  the  fact  that,  not  more  than  98  years  after  its  first  execution,  the  Spanish 
authorities  have  legally  acknowledged  it.  Some  objections  relating  to  imperfections 
in  the  text,  apparent  anachronisms,  have  been  eliminated  through  the  judicious 

REPORT  PEABODY  MUSEUM,  II.    28. 


434 

merely  to  become  free  of  tribute  to  the  Mexicans,  as  the}-  had  been 
previously  ;  but  no  thought  entered  their  mind,  at  that  time,  of 
ownership  of  the  soil.123  This  earliest  transaction  (probably 
20th  of  May,  1519)  was  in  itself  a  perfect  revolution,  or  at  least 
the  initiatory  step  thereto.  Unbeknown  to  themselves,  these 
Indians  became  feudatories  to  the  crown  of  Spain,  and  thus  the 
first  germ  was  planted,  which,  in  its  development,  subverted 
gradually  the  aboriginal  order  of  things  in  Mexico.124 

Every  tribe,  which  subsequently  surrendered  to  the  Spaniards, 
bowed  in  the  same  manner  to  the  new  principle  introduced.  The 
Indians  did  not  realize  it,  and  as  the  idea  of  territorial  domain 
was  unknown  to  them,  they  could  not  see  the  construction  placed 
upon  their  submission  by  the  European  invaders.  It  was  not 
possible  for  them  to  feel  or  know  that,  if  the  council  of  a  tribe 
agreed  to  accept  the  Spaniards  in  place  of  their  former  Mexican 
conquerors,  their  territory  thereby  might  become  alienated.  On  the 
other  hand  the  Spaniards,  not  understanding  the  principles  of  In 
dian  organization,  completely  misunderstood  the  nature  of  the 
contract.  They  took  it  for  granted,  that  the  tribal  government 
had  power  and  authority  over  the  tribal  soil. 

When  at  last  Montezuma  and  such  chiefs  as  were  with  him, 
from  Mexico  as  well  as  from  Tezcuco  and  Tlacopan,  being  then 

notes  of  Sr.  Ramirez,  as  well  as  by  the  careful  and  thorough  treatment  of  the  editor, 
Sr.  Jcazbalceta.  We  cannot  refrain  from  accepting  the  "Real  Ejecutoria"  as  genuine 
and  from  calling  the  reader's  attention  to  it,  as  one  of  the  most  important  documents 
on  the  subject  of  ancient  Mexican  tenure  of  the  soil.  For  the  purpose  of  this  note,  we 
exclusively  dwell  on  its  authenticity,  reserving  the  other  points  concerned  for  subse 
quent  annotations;  two  items  excepted  which  we  must  mention  here,  namely:  It 
results  from  the  grant  of  Cortes : 

(1).  That  the  chiefs  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco  held  no  lands  as  their  own 

property,  untd  Cortes  granted  such  to  them. 

(2).  That  their  offices  were  not  hereditary,  until  Cortes  established  them  as  such; 

through  his  aforesaid  grant.    The  two  conclusions  just  stated  are  of  great 

importance  for  the  subject  of  this  paper,  and  they  should  be  kept  present  iu 

mind,  since  we  shall  have  occasion  to  make  further  use  of  the  document. 

123"  Real  Ejecutoria,  etc.,  etc."  ("Col.de  Docum."  Vol.  II,  p.  (!)•    Andres  de  Tapia 

("Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  p.  561,  etc.)    Cortes  (••  Carta  Segunda,"  Vedia,  I,  pp.  12  and  13). 

Gomara  ("Conq.  de  Mejico,"  Vedia  I,  p.  318.     Very  explicit  and  positive).    Oviedo 

(Lib.  XXX1I1,  cap.  II,   pp.  201,  202  and  203).      Bernal-Diez  ("Hist,  verdadera,  etc." 

Vedia  II,  cap.  XLVI  and  XLV11).    Ixthlxochitl  ('-Hist,  des  Chichim.."  trap.  LXXX,  pp. 

173,  174  and  175).    Torquemada  (Lib.  IV,  cap.  XX,   pp.  3V»7,  3!J8  and  3'.)'.)).    Clavigero 

(Lib.  VIII,  cap.  IX  and  XI).    Robertson  ("History  of  America,"  Vol.  II,  Book  V,  p. 

286).    (Prescott  Book  II,  cap.  VII). 

124  »  Real  Ejecutoria,  etc."  (•'  Col.  de  Doc."  II,  p.  6,  "  y  que  desde  agora  en  adelante 
y  para  siempre  se  ofrecian  fleles  y  leaJes  va>allos  de  sn  miijestad  6  empenidor  .  .  ."  p.  7, 
"y  me  supliearou  les  diese  testimonio  de  la  obediencia  que  dieron  a  Dios  nuestro 
Senor  y  £  S.  M.»; 


435 

in  Spanish  power,  consented  to  the  ceremonies  required  for  their 
"swearing  allegiance"  to  Spain,  Cortes  thenceforth  regarded  the 
annexation  of  Mexico  to  the  domains  of  his  liege  lord  as  complete.125 
Montezuma  was  hereafter  considered  as  a  feudatory  of  the  Spanish 
crown,  and  it  became  the  duty  of  that  crown's  other  dependents 
to  protect  him.  Consequently,  when  the  Mexicans  took  up  arms 
against  their  obnoxious  guests,  they  became,  in  the  eyes  of  the 
latter,  rebels  against  what  was  assumed  to  be  their  legitimate  lord, 
Montezuma,  and,  he  in  turn  having  been  converted  into  a  vassal 
of  Spain,  rebels  also  towards  that  power  itself.126  This  act  of 
rebellion  entailed  for  those  participating  in  it,  forfeiture  of  life 
and  property,  at  the  option  of  their  conquerors.  Thus  a  further 
title  was  created  for  the  Spaniards,  to  seize  even  lands  used  or 
held  by  individuals,  outside  of  what  they  believed  to  be  public  or 
lordly  domains,  and  a  theoretical  right  was  construed  to  be  a 
complete  and  violent  revolution. 

After  the  pueblo  of  Mexico  had  fallen,  the  first  step  of  Cortes 
in  regard  to  the  Indians  was,  therefore,  to  establish  the  system  of 
"  Repartimientos."  127  This  mode  had  come  into  existence  during 
the  life-time  of  Columbus,  through  a  Patent  dated  22d  of  July,  1497, 
authorizing  the  great  admiral  to  distribute  lands  in  the  West  Indian 
Islands  among  the  Spanish  settlers  for  their  own  use  and  exclusive 
ownership.128  No  mention  is  made,  in  these  letters  patent,  of  the 
aboriginal  occupants  of  the  soil,  but  Columbus,  in  a  later  act  of 
his  own,  decided  that  the  Indians  should  work  such  lands  for  the 
benefit  of  those  to  whom  he  had  given  them  "and  thus"  says  Herrera, 
"the  Repartimientos  or  Encomiendas  all  over  the  Indies  origi 
nated."1'29  '  The  Indians  on  such  tracts  became  serfs  to  their  Span- 

125  Cortes  ("Carta  Segunda,"  Vedia  I,  p.  30).    Bernal-Diez  (Cap.  CI,  Vedia  II,  p.  103). 
Oviedo  (Lib.  XXXIII,  cap.  IX). 

126  The  term  •'  rebellion  "  is  frequently  applied  to  the  uprising  of  the  Mexicans  during 
Cortes'  short  absence  on  his  expedition  against  Narvaez,  and  their  subsequent  resistance 
to  Spanish  power.    In  fact,  it  appears  so  frequently  in  documents  and  chronicles  of  the 
16th  century,  that  we  may  well  refrain  from  special  quotations. 

i-' Cortes  (•' Carta  Cuarta,"  Vedia  I,  pp.  113,  114,115  and  11(>).  Bernal-Diez  (Vedia  II, 
Cap.  CLXIX,  pp.  -237  and  238).  Gomara  (Vedia  I,  p.  394).  Letter  of  the  troops  of  Cortes 
to  the  Emperor  ("Col.  de  Doc.,"  I,  p.  431).  It  is  also  acknowledged  by  Cortes  himself 
in  his  letter  of  15  October,  1524,  to  the  Emperor,  wherein  he  expressly  states  ("  Col.  de 
Doc.,"  I,  pp.  472  and  473),  that  he  dai-ed  not  promulgate  the  latest  despatches  received 
by  him  from  the  Spanish  court,  since  these  enjoined  him  to  abstain  from  "  repartir  ni 
encomendar."  Thus  he  acknowledges  having  already  made  "  repartimientos." 

128  X  ivarrete  ("  Colleccion  de  Viajus,  etc."  Tom.  II,  pp.  215  and  21G).  Herrera  (Dec. 
I,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  II,  p.  6(3). 

«»Herrera  (Dec.  I,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  XVI,  p.  95).    Oviedo  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  72). 


436 

ish  conquerors,  they  could  not,  at  least  in  later  times,  be  separated 
from  the  soil  on  which  they  dwelt.130 

The  country  of  Mexico  being  very  extensive,  while  the  number 
of  the  original  Spanish  conquerors  was  comparatively  small,  it 
followed  that,  sometimes  at  least,  large  areas  inhabited  by  entire 
tribes,  or  at  least  by  entire  kinships,  fell  to  the  lot  of  a  single  man. 
The  new  owner  in  such  cases  found  an  organized  community  estab 
lished  upon  his  grant,  and  he  usually  preferred  not  to  disturb 
this  organization,  contenting  himself  with  exacting  for  his  individ 
ual  benefit  a  tribute  levied  in  a  manner  approximate  to  that  which 
had  been  customary  previous  to  the  conquest.131  Nevertheless, 
several  disturbing  influences  soon  appeared. 

The  first  one  was  the  construction  placed  upon  the  obligation  of 
personal  labor  to  be  performed  by  the  Indians.  It  was  gradually 
so  extended,  that  instead  of  remaining  confined  to  the  land,  it  at 
tached  to  the  person  of  the  new  owner,  and  thus  tended,  by  ad 
mitting  forcible  displacement,  to  disrupt  the  ties  of  kinship,  which 
formed  the  basis  of  the  tenure  of  lands.132 

In  the  second  place  the  Spaniards  looked  upon  all  tracts  set  apart 
by  the  Indians  for  governmental  purposes,  as  public  domain  of  the 
Mexicans,  and  so,  wherever  a  tribe  had  resisted  their  invasion, 
such  official  lands  were  of  course  regarded  as  forfeited.  They  be 
came  either  property  of  the  crown,  or  were  assigned  to  some  one 
of  the  early  Spanish  immigrants.  AVe  have  already  seen  that  these 
lots,  although  their  crops  were  destined  to  special  uses,  were  prop 
erly  communal  soil.  This  mode  of  tenure  was  now  suddenly  abol 
ished,  and  the  principle  of  private  orpwWic  oivnersliip  established 


isoHerrera  (Dec.  I,  lib.  Ill  cap.  XVI,  p.  95).  Oviedo  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  72). 
Mendieta  (Lib.  I,  cap.  VI,  pp.  32  and  33). 

131  Letter  of  Rnmirez  de  Fuenleal,  Bishop  of  San  Domingo  ("  Recueil,  etc.,"  p.  244). 
Letter  of  the  Licentiate  Ceynos  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  Vol.  II,  pp.  1(52  and  103).  Letter  of 
Ramirez  de  Fuenleal  ("  Col.  de  Doc."  Vol.  II,  pp.  170, 171  and  172,  etc.,  etc.).  Letter  of 
Father  Domingo  de  Betanzos  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  pp.  190-197).  Bernal-Diez  (Cap.  CCX, 
p.  313.  Vedia  II). 

13<2That  the  original  intention  was  merely  to  have  the  Indians  work  the  soil  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Spanish  owners,  is  proved  by  Herrera  (Dec.  I,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  XVI,  p.  '.)">), 
and  by  Oviedo  (Lib.  Ill,  cap.  VI,  p.  72).  The  latter  was  a  contemporary.  But  it  results, 
principally  from  the  complaints  about  the  ill  treatments  of  the  Indians,  and  the  sug 
gestions  for  remedy, —  that  the  Spaniards  very  soon  converted  this  position  into  one  of 
personal  slavery.  See  Letter  of  Ramirez  de  Fuenleal,  of  1532  ("Col.  de  Doc.,"  II.  pp. 
167  and  108),  of  Alonzo  del  Castillo  (Col.  II,  p.  202).  Opinion  of  the  Licentiate  Marcos 
de  Aguilar,  8  Oct.,  1526  ("  Col.  de  Doc."  II,  pp.  545  and  516).  Joint  letter  to  the  Emperor, 
of  9  Franciscan  and  Dominican  monks  (ik  Col.  de  Doc. "pp.  549-553).  Letter  of  Motolinia 
("  Col.  dc  Doc."  Vol.  I),  2  Jan.,  150.3. 


437 

in  its  place.  It  is  not  surprising  therefore,  to  find  in  the  "Libro 
del  Cabildo,"  or  book  of  the  municipality  of  the  young  city  of 
Mexico,  between  the  years  1524  and  1529,  numerous  entries  re 
cording  the  petitions  of  Spaniards  for  sites  occupied,  according  to 
their  belief,  by  private  dwellings  of  Mexican  chiefs,  and  the  grants 
issued  in  consequence  thereof.133  This  applied  not  only  to  the 
"  lands  of  the  houses  of  the  community  "  (tecpan-tlalli),  and  "  kinds 
of  the  speakers"  (tlatoca-tlalli),  but  especially  to  the  "pillali"  or 
lots  assigned  to  each  chieftain  as  member  of  a  particular  quarter. 
In  this  manner  the  soil  of  the  consanguine  group,  the  basis  of 
landed  tenure  in  Mexico,  was  directly  invaded  ;  portions  of  it  being 
torn  from  its  original  connection. 

Lastly  the  Spaniards,  finding  Indian  communities  too  strongly 
and  permanently  organized  for  a  sudden  and  violent  reform,  ac 
ceded  to  their  maintenance  as  far  as  they  understood  it.  But, 
fully  convinced  that  the  chiefs  were  monarchical  or  despotic  rulers  — 
masters  of  the  soil  as  well  as  of  its  inhabitants, —  wherever  these 
chiefs  had  been  personally  friendly  to  them  or  wherever  they  re 
garded  it  as  politic,  they  confirmed  what  they  conceived  to  be 
their  prerogatives.134  Thus,  regarding  them  as  owners  of  the  dif 
ferent  classes  of  official  lots,  this  ownership  was  formally  recog 
nized,  and  it  was  acknowledged  that  they  were  "lawfully  seized  in 
fee  thereof."  The  "tlalmaites"  became  in  law  the  vassals  of  those 
whom  they  formerly  but  considered  as  elective  functionaries. 

Not  content  with  this,  and  in  order  to  reward  certain  chiefs  for 
services  rendered  during  the  conquest  or  good  behavior  afterwards, 
the  Spanish  conquerors  also  issued  to  them  "Repartimientos,  or 
gave  them  lands,  sometimes  unoccupied  wastes,  as  their,  oivn  pri- 


issHumboldt  ("Essai  politique  sur  la  Nouvelle  Espagne,"  Vol.  II,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  VIII, 
pp.  64  and  65). 

134  Letter  of  Father  Toribio  de  Paredes  (Motolinia)  2  Jan'y,  1555  (Col.  de  Doc.  I),  and 
especially  the  long  letter  of  Mendieta,  dated  Toluca,  1st  day  of  the  year  1562  ("  Col.  de 
Doc."  II).  "  Sixth :  it  appears  to  me  that  the  native  and  legitimate  Lords  should  be 

taken  into  account I  treat  of  the  particular  Lords,  touching  their  lordship  of 

their  Indians  and  pueblos,  which  they  formerly  possessed.  For  I  think  that  some  are 
expelled,  and  I  do  not  know  even  if  they  were  not  reduced  to  macehualesand  tributaries, 
and  others,  although  some  trifle  is  given  to  them  it  is  in  the  shape  of  a  governorship  and  in 
such  a  manner  that,  once  despoiled  from  it,  they  are  left  destitute"  ("  se  quedan  & 
buenas  noches")  (p.  538).  The  good  father  here  represents  the  true  conceptions  of  the 
Europeans  about  the  Indian  chieftaincy  (as  a  feudal  lordship)  at  the  time  of  the  con 
quest.  Also;  Letter  of  the  Archbishop  of  Mexico,  Fray  Alonzo  de  Montufar,  dated 
30  Nov.,  1554.  ("  Cruautes  horribles  des  conquerauts  du  Mexique"  Teruaux-Compans, 
pp.  258,  259  and  260,  appendix.) 


438 

vote  property.™5     Among  these  is  to  be  classed  the  grant  already 
mentioned  to  the  caciques  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco.136 

The  documents  partaking  of  the  nature  of  "  Repartimientos" 
contain  among  their  number  a  donation  by  Cortes  to  Dona  Isabel 
Montezuma,  daughter  of  the  former  Mexican  "  Tlaca-tecuhtli," 
which  is  very  interesting  for  the  purposes  of  this  investigation. 
It  is  dated  26  of  June,  1526,  and  gives  to  the  grantee,  in  consid 
eration  of  the  aid  lent  to  Cortes  by  her  father,  the  entire  territory 
of  the  Tecpanecan  tribe,  at  the  same  time  acknowledging  that  it 
belonged  to  her  by  right  "as  patrimonial  estate."131  We  know, 
however,  that  the  Tecpanecas  formed  the  third  member  of  the 

135  "  Real  Ejecutoria,  etc."  ("  Col.  de  Doc."  Vol.  II,  p.  20).  Grant  of  Cortes  to  Dona 
Isabel  Montezuma  (Prescott,  "Hist,  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico,"  Vol.  Ill,  Appendix, 
pp.  460,  461,  462,  463  and  464).  Petition  addressed  to  Charles  V,  by  several  Mexican 
chiefs  in  1532  (Appendix  to  "Cruautes  horribles  desconquerants  du  Mexique"Ternaux- 
Compans,  p.  261). 

138 It  says :  ('•  Real  Ejecutoria,  etc.,  etc."  Col.  de  Doc.  II,  p.  18,  "  and  since  they  were 
such  (faithful)  servants  of  H.  M.,  they  should  be  freed,  together  with  their  pueblos, 
from  all  impositions  and  contributions  forever,  and  to  them  should  be  given  four  tracts 
of  land  ("estancias  de  tierras"),  and  they  should  become  perpetual  governors  of  their 
tribes,  and  none  of  their  inferiors  should  ever  obtain  the  office"  p.  21.  The  King  and 
his  council  of  the  Indies  consequently  ordained  "by  these  presents  we  declare  the 
aforesaid  to  be  free  and  discharged  ("quitos"),  not  bound  to  tributes,  tenths,  premices 
and  other  duties  or  contributions  customary  or  yet  to  be  introduced,  and  that  they  and 
their  descendants  shall  perpetually  hold  the  government  of  their  pueblos,  with  all  the  ad 
vantages  and  appurtenances  to  the  four  tracts,  as  Lords  thereof,  and  that  it  is  our  pleas 
ure  and  will.  .  .  ."Lastly,  in  describing  the  lands  surveyed  for  the  said  caciques  it  says  : 
"  and  they  are  rough  timbered  lands,  without  any  water,  of  which  the  aforesaid  took 
possession"  p.  24).  This  shows  that  certain  tracts  were  set  off  from  the  communal 
soil,  to  become  private  property  of  the  chiefs.  It  is  interesting  to  connect  therewith 
the  following  statement  by  Zurita  (p.  57).  '-These  lands  belonging  to  the  calpullis,  it 
was  unjust  to  give  them  to  the  Spaniards,  as  it  is  still  done.  The  latter  seeing  unculti 
vated  lands,  demand  them  from  the  persons  who  govern." 

137  This  grant  has  fortunately  been  published  by  Mr.  Prescott,  in  the  Appendix  to 
the  "History  of  the  Conquest  of  Mexico"  (Vol.  Ill,  pp.  461-464).  It  bears  the  title: 
'•  Privilegio  de  Dona  Isabel  Montezuma,  Hija  del  gran  Motezuma  ultimo  Rey  Indio  del 
gran  Reyno  y  Cibdad  de  Mexico,  que  bautizada  y  siendo  Christiana  caso  con  Alonso 
Grado,  natural  de  la  villa  de  Alcantara,  Hidalgo,  y  criado  de  su  Magestad,  que  habia 
Servido  y  servia  en  muchos  oflcios  de  aquel  Reyno.  Otorgado  por  Don  Hernando 
Cortes,  conquistador  del  dicho  Reyno,  etc.,  etc."  Its  date  is  26  June,  1526.  The  Dona 
Isabel  is  mentioned  as  "  the  principal  and  legitimate  heiress  of  the  said  Lord  Moteguma," 
and  the  concession  itself  is  worded  as  follows :  "  con  la  qual  dicha  Dona  Isabel  le  pro- 
meto  y  doi  en  dote  y  araas  S  la  dicha  Dona  Isabel  y  sus  descendientos,  en  nombre  de 
S.  M.  y  como  su  governador  y  capitan  general  destas  partes,  y  porque  de  derecho  le 
pertenece  de  su  patrimomo  y  legitirna,  el  Senoria  y  naturales  del  Pueblo  de  Tacuba, 
etc.,  etc."  The  following  pueblos  are  added  :  Yeteve,  Yzqui-Luca,  Chimalpan,  Chnpul- 
maloyan,  Escapulteango,  Xiloango,  Ocoiacaque,  Castepeque,  Talanco,  Gatscrio,  Duote- 
peque,  Tacala.  Notwithstanding  the  defective  orthography  (Escapultango  in  place  of 
Azcaputzalco,  Duotepeque  instead  of  Ometepec,  etc.)  we  easily  discern  the  territory 
of  the  Tecpanecan  tribe;  a  fact  still  further  proven  by  the  own  words  of  the  grant : "'  the 
aforesaid  settlements  and  pueblos  are  subjected  to  the  pueblo  of  Tacuba  and  to  its 
Lord." 


439 

"  Nahuatl "  confederacy  of  the  valley  of  Mexico,  that  they  and 
their  soil  were  totally  independent  from  the  Mexicans.138  Still, 
Cortes  Ivonestly  assumed  it  to  have  been  a  part  of  the  Mexican 
domain,  and  on  this  assumption  based  his  disposition  of  it,  fully 
convinced  that  he  was  performing  an  act  of  honest  restitution.  This 
gives  a  measure  of  the  erroneous  ideas  then  prevailing  among  the 
Spaniards  on  the  mode  of  tenure  and  distribution  of  lands  in 
ancient  Mexico. 

Thus  a  state  of  things  was  inaugurated  which  could  not  fail, 
eventually,  to  create  the  most  unfortunate  results.  The  Indians 
among  themselves  were  placed  on  very  unequal  footings.  In  some 
sections  the  calpulli,  even  the  whole  tribe,  were  left  undisturbed, 
in  others  their  lands  were  assigned  to  Spanish  individuals.  Again, 
certain  tracts  were  taken  away  from  the  communal  soil,  and  be 
came  private  property  of  individual  conquerors.  But  the  most 
disastrous  influence  certainly  was  exercised  by  the  assignment  of 
landed  property  to  individual  Indians.  It  created  an  inequality 
of  condition  in  each  and  every  aboriginal  community  against  which 
those  least  favored  revolted,  whereas  the  preferred  ones,  now  com 
bining  authority  with  landed  property,  were  tempted  to  abuse 
their  new  position.139  Of  this  division  and  strife  among  the 


138  In  addition  to  the  testimony  already  adduced,  we  refer  here  to  the  Letter  of  Fray 
Toribio  (Motolinia)  and  Fray  Diego  d'  Olarte,  dated  Cholula  27  Aug.,  1554.    "All  the 
others  obeyed  to  Montezuma,  to  the  sovereign  of  Tezctico,  and  to  him  of  Tacuba. 
These  three  princes  were  closely  confederated;  they  divided  among  themselves  the 
lands  (countries)  which  they  conquered."    ("  Recueil  de  pifices,  et^.,"  p.  403.)    In  the 
"Relation  of  the  services  rendered  by  the  Marquis  of  the  Valley  (Cortes),"  executed 
between  1532  and  1535  — and  presented  to  the  Emperor  by  the  Licentiate  Nunez,  refer- 
ence  is  made  to  the  original  grant  to  Cortes,  of  lands  containing:  "23.000  vassals" 
which  territory  included  the  Tecpanecan  pueblos  of  Cuyuacan  and  Atacubaya.    These 
pueblos  were  claimed  ''through  the  intrigues  of  the  president  Nuno  de  Guzman  and  of 
the  auditors  Matienzo  and  Delgadillo  "  as  belonging  to  Mexico,  but  the  case  was  tried 
in  New  Spain,  and  Cortes  furnished  ample  proof  "how  the  said  lands  are  distinct,  in 
limits  and  jurisdiction,  from  the  city  of  Mexico,  and  that  the  Lords  of  Cuyuacan  and 
Atacubaya  always  possessed  them  peaceably  and  in  lact"  ("Col.  de  Doc.,"  Vol.  II,  p. 
56).    If  now  this  was  the  fact  with  those  two  villages,  how  much  more  so  was  it  with 
Tacuba  and  its  surroundings,  which  were  the  chief  places  of  the  Tecpanecan  tribe;  as 
third  member  of  the  Nahuatl  confederacy  of  the  Mexican  valley. 

139  The  grant  to  Cortes  mentioned  in  the  preceding  note,  is  an  instance  of  the  agglom 
eration  of  several  pueblos  under  a  single  owner.    There  must  have  been  many  more : 
since  he  created  originally  but  200  "Repartimientos"  over  the  whole  territory.    The 
Licentiate  Ceynos,  in  his  letter  of  22  June,  1532  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  Vol.  II,  p.  150),  men- 
tions  "  until  400  persons  "  of  which  200  had  to  settle  in  the  city  of  Mexico.    The  Bishop 
Fuenleal  in  his  '•  Opinion  "  of  1532  ('•  Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  p.  176).  mentions  (among  others) 
the  following  Repartimieutos :  "  Huexotzinco  to  Diego  de  Ordaz."    The  province  of 


440 

Aborigines  themselves  the  Spaniards  naturally  profited  for 
further  encroachments.  Many  "  encomenderos  "  used  the  author 
ity  of  the  chiefs  to  turn  their  Indian  serfs  into  actual  slaves, 
others  in  turn  improved  the  new  perspective  opened  to  the  natives 
towards  the  acquisition  of  private  la.nds,  for  the  purpose  of  under 
mining  the  influence  and  authority  of  the  chieftains.140  Fre 
quently,  also,  the  ignorance  in  which  the  Indians  were,  as  to  the 


Tepeaca  to  Pedro  Armildez  Chirino,— Chilchota  to  Juan  de  Samano,  etc.,  etc.  Each 
of  these,  especially  the  first  one,  comprised  several  villages,  nay  a  whole  tribe. 

Compare  the  letter  of  the  Archbishop  Mowtufar,  30  Nov.,  1554  ("CruauU's  horribles, 
etc."  Appendix,  255-260).  Zurita  (pp.  63  and  64).  The  complaints  are  principally, 
against  such  as  held  offices  under  the  conquerors,  and  such  to  whom  lands  were  given 
out  of  the  calpulalli.  The  petition  of  Monlufar  is  a  terrible  accusation  against  the  In 
dian  chiefs.  Gomara,  however,  qualifies  it  as  one  of  the  good  effects  of  the  conquest 
that  the  Indians  since  that  time  ''hold  lands"  (Vedia  1).  Motolinia  (Trat.  I,  cap.  I,  p. 
17)  is  very  severe  on  the  collectors  of  rent  for  the  whites.  But  these  collectors  must 
have  been  mostly  Indians,—  chiefs,  as  he  himself  acknowledges  in  his  Cholula-letters. 

140  Motolinia  (Trat.  I,  cap.  I,  p.  17).  Montufar  (pp.  255-260).  Zurita  (pp.  61}  and  64). 
Ceynos,  Second  Letter,  1  March,  1565  (Col.  de  Doc.  II,  pp.  240  and  241).  Zurita  (p.  83) 
is  of  special  importance,  exposing  the  intrigues  of  the  Spanish  conquerors  among  the 
Indian  communities,  inciting  the  natives  to  litigations  against  their  chiefs.  Mendieta, 
in  his  remarkable  letter  from  Toluca,  1  Jan'y,  1562,  to  Fray  Francisco  de  Bustamante, 
commissary  general,  at  Mexico,  devotes  his  principal  attention  to  the  pernicious  influ 
ence  of  the  Spanish  interpreters  and  lawyers,  inciting  the  Indians  to  litigation  before 
the  "  Aiuliencia"  and  not  before  the  viceroy.  He  says  for  inst.  (p.  532),  "  that  without 
comparison  their  condition  and  behavior  was  better  at  their  time  of  gentility  than  now. 
For  at  the  time  they  were  heathens  they  did  not  know  of  lawyers  ("letrado"  properly 
men  of  letters),  scribes,  nor  attorneys,  neither  of  litigations,  nor  to  spend  in  such  (squab 
bles)  their  properties  and  ruin  their  souls.  To-day,  since  the  opportunity  is  afforded  to 
them,  and  they  being  naturally  quarrelsome,  disposed  to  tackle  and  injure  each  other, 
they  are  so  fond  of  it  as  to  have  them  continually  on  hand,  Avithout  cause  nor  reason, 
and  (such  are)  always  the  worst  and  most  abject  of  the  tribe.  Therefore  not  a  single 
community  is  found  in  New  Spain  which  is  not  disturbed,  and  does  not  spend  nearly  as 
much  in  litigation  as  they  pay  of  tribute  to  H.  M.,  or  to  the  encomendero  every  year. 
And  since  they  are  of  little  understanding,  and  not  versed  in  law,  I  hold  all  what  the 
interpreters  and  attorneys  gain  by  it  as  so  much  of  a  robbery  as  if  they  would  take  it 
from  the  houses  at  night.  Such  do  not  even  deny  their  base  actions,  but  confess  openly 
that  they  do  it,  without  any  other  excuse  than  that  II.  M.  gives  them  permission."  On 
p.  536,  he  says:  "certain  particular  Indians  in  all  the  settlements  do  great  mischief, 
knowing  that  they  have  recourse  to  the  court,  and  among  the  pretenses  to  cover  their 
malice  they  use  two  most  commonly,  which  arc:  demand  account  of  the  communal 
property,  pretending  that  the  principals  spend  it,  and  the  other,  to  have  the  conduct  of 
their  officers  investigated  under  color  that  these  abuse  of  their  position  (power)." 
Zurita  (p.  83),  speaking  of  the  intrigues  against  the  chiefs  says:  "the  ordinary  tribute 
and  prestations  failing,  they  fall  into  the  most  abject  misery,  become  dejected,  dare 
not  speak,  and  do  not  know  where  to  apply  for  protection.  For  all  this  the  rebels  do 
not  cause  any  loss  to  the  encomendero  as  to  his  tribute  ....  In  this  manner  they 
ruin  the  chiefs  in  a  very  short  time,  for  all  their  property  consists  in  the  work  of  their 
vassals,  as  soon  as  that  ceases,  if  it  was  but  for  a  single  day,  they  lack  every  requisite 
for  life."  (This  quotation  is  in  itself,  we  think,  the  most  ample  confirmation  of  what 
we  have  advanced  upon  the  subject  of  aboriginal  tenure  of  the  soil,  and  fully  disproves 
what  has  been  assumed  in  regard  to  the  chiefs  holding  and  owning  lands  of  their 
own).  See  also  Memorial  of  Bartolome  de  Las  Casas  '.Col.  de  Doc.  II,  pp.  22!)  and  230). 


441 

real  import  and  value  of  landed  concessions,  was  taken  advantage 
of  to  deprive  them  of  such  subsequently,  either  through  litiga 
tion  or  through  barter  for  worthless  trifles.141  Unacquainted  with 
the  new  order  of  things  suddenly  forced  upon  them,  unable  there 
fore  to  profit  by  it  for  subsistence,  the  natives  of  Mexico  could 
not  help  being  degraded  instead  of  elevated  and  bettered  in  con 
dition  by  such  a  transition  which  displaced  them,  in  the  course  of 
a  few  years,  from  a  state  of  tribal  and  communal  society  into  one 
of  civilization.142 

Consequently  a  state  of  disorganization  began  to  prevail,  which 
threatened  to  ruin  the  country.  At  the  same  time,  however,  while 
the  Indians,  forlorn  in  the  maze  of  difficulties  in  which  their 
conquerors  themselves  also  floundered  about,  were  in  a  perfectly 
helpless  condition,  a  sudden  protection  and  relief  arose  to  them. 
On  the  13th  of  May,  1524,  "one  day  previous  to  the  vigils  of 
Pentecost,"  there  landed  at  San  Juan  de  Ulua,  a  cluster  of  twelve 
Franciscan  friars,  sent  to  Mexico  in  response  to  the  original  call  of 
Cortes,  for  the  purpose  of  converting  the  Indians.143  These  monks 

141  Znrita  (pp.  63  and  64).    Mendieta  (Letter,  in  Col.  de  Doc.  II). 

J4>2  The  Europeans  opened  a  wide  field  for  activity.  They  were  superior  to  the  Mex 
ican  aborigines,  not  only  in  organization,  but  especially  in  mechanical  arts  and  inven 
tions  for  the  purpose  of  subsistence.  It  was  now  required  of  the  Indians  to  suddenly 
take  hold  of  all  these  improvements,  which  it  had  taken  the  Europeans  centimes  upon 
centuries  to  secure  through  long  experimenting,—  and  to  become  familiar  with  them  in  a 
short  time,  as  well  as  to  feel  happy  and  contented  at  once  under  a  state  of  society  which 
tore  asunder  all  those  ties  of  kinship  forming,  since  time  immemorial,  the  basis  of  their 
organization.  It  was  asking  too  much  of  them  altogether,  and  if  besides  what  was 
asked  was  even  enforced  violently,— then  the  degrading  consequences  could  not  be 
avoided.  Therefore,  the  most  ardent  advocates  of  the  Indian  cause  took  great  care  to 
insist  upon  letting  the  natives  alone  in  their  communities;  even  prohibiting  the  access 
thereto  to  the  Spanish  colonists.  Bartolome  de  las  Casas,  in  his  joint  memorial  with  Fray 
Domingo  de  Santa  Tonias,  in  favor  of  the  Indians  of  Peru,  written  about  1560  (''Col. 
de  Doc."  Bibliographical  notes,  p.  XLII,)  says:  "Lo  segundo,  que  porque  los  Espafi- 
oles  son  siempre  del  bien  de  los  indios  contraries,  y  en  especial  lo  son  y  nan  de  ser 
impedidores  de  aqueste  negocio  y  concierto,  que  han  de  estorbar  por  cuantas  vias  pudi- 
eren  que  los  indios  no  paguen  a  S.  M.  ni  puedan  pagar  este  servicio;  por  tanto  es  nec- 
esario  que  se  prohiba  que  ningun  comendero  entre  por  ninguna  causa  ni  razon  en  los 
pueblos  de  los  indios  que  tienen  encomendados,  ni  sus  mujeres,  que  son  las  mas  crueles 
y  perniciosas,  ni  negro,  ni  criado,  ni  otra  persona  suya  (p.  233)."  Alonzo  de  Zurita,  in 
his  memorial  written  at  Mexico  between  1554  and  1564  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  p.  XL VII), 
insists  strongly  upon  keeping  the  Indians  apart  from  the  Whites  (p.  335).  In  regard  to 
the  actual  degradation,  see  Mendieta's  letter,  of  1  Jan'y?  1562  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  p. 
532).  Motolinia  ("  Hist,  de  los  Indios  de  N.  Espafia,"  Trat.  I,  cap.  I). 

143  The  Franciscan  friars  obtained  their  first  concession  from  Pope  Leo  X,  by  a  bull 
dated  25  April,  1521  (Mendieta,  lib.  Ill,  cap.  V,  pp.  186-190).  This  bull  was  executed  in 
favor  of  Fray  Francisco  de  Quinones  (de  los  Angeles),  and  Fray  Juan  Clapion.  But 
these  fathers  never  reached  Mexico.  Previous  to  it,  three  Flemish  missionaries,  Fray 
Juan  de  Tecto,  Fray  Juan  de  Aora,  and  Fray  Pedro  of  Ghent  had  gone  to  New  Spain 


442 

fully  realized  what  was  asked  of  them,  but  they  went  still  further 
by  becoming,  not  only  the  spiritual  advisers,  but  actually  the  mate 
rial  protectors,  of  the  aborigines.  Basing  upon  the  authority 
conferred  by  the  Pontiff  at  Rome,  they  publicly  denounced,  not 
only  the  individual  acts  of  the  Spaniards,  but  even  those  of  the 
royal  officers.144  This  could  not  fail  to  incite  the  Indians  to  resis 
tance,  and  when  the  conquerors  resorted  to  violence,  not  only  did 
the  oppressed  find  refuge  and  protection  in  the  newly  erected  con 
vents,  but  one  of  the  most  distinguished  Franciscans,  Fray  Toribio, 
of  Benavent  (Motolinia),  even  notified  the  agents  of  the  royal 
"audiencia," —  who  had  come  to  Huexotzinco  to  seize  the  fugitives 
and  bring  them  to  justice, — to  leave  the  settlement  forthwith, 
threatening,  in  case  of  non-compliance,  with  excommunication.145 
The  protection  thus  afforded  would  have  been  far  more  efficacious, 
had  the  good  Friars  understood  at  that  time  the  true  nature  of 
Indian  land  tenure,  and  their  usages  with  respect  to  the  distribution 
of  the  soil.  They  might  then  have  accompanied  their  violent 
protests  with  a  rational  remedy.  Restoration  of  the  ancient  cus 
toms,  limiting  the  Indian  cluster^  to  their  territories  actually  tilled, 
without  disturbing  their  original  organization,  would  have  been  the 
proper  way.  Alongside  of  such  communities,  ample  room  would 
have  remained  for  the  settlements  of  whites,  and  the  unavoidable 
contact  between  both  races  would  have  changed  slowly  and  more 
permanently  the  condition  of  the  natives,  lifting  them  up  gradu 
ally  to  the  practical  appreciation  of  ideas  of  civilization.  But 

of  their  own  accord,  and  without  Papal  sanction.  But,  while  Fray  Pedro  de  Gante,  for 
instance,  rendered  valuable  service  to  science  through  one  of  his  letters,  it  is  among  the 
"twelve  apostles  of  Mexico"  that  we  find  those  who  have  equally  combined  heroism  in 
protecting  the  Indians,  with  due  regard  to  the  conservation  of  their  memories  and 
historical  traditions.  These  "  twelve  "  were :  Fray  Martin  de  Valencia,  Fray  Francisco 
de  Soto,  Fray  Martin  de  Corufia,  Fr.  Juan  Xuares,  Fray  Antonio  de  Ciudad  Rodrigo, 
Fr.  Toribio  of  Benavente,  Fr.  Garcia  de  Cisneros,  Fr.  Luis  de  Fuensalida,  Fr.  Juan  de 
Ribas,  Fr.  Francisco  Ximenez,  Fr.  Andre's  de  Cordoba,  Fray  Juan  de  Palos  (Mendieta, 
lib.  Ill,  cap.  X,  also  cap.  XI,  etc.).  We  shall  have  further  occasion  to  use  their  writings, 
therefore  this  humble  tribute  of  gratitude  to  their  memories. 

144  Compare  the  beautiful  introduction  to  Motolinia's  "Historia  de  los  Indios  de 
Nueva-Espana,"  by  Sr.  Jose  F.  Ramirez,  in  Sr.  Icazbalceta's  "Col.  de  Documentos" 
(Vol.  I,  Introd.  p.  XLVII  to  p.  I),  which  quotes  an  act  of  Gonzalo  de  Salazar,  28  July, 
1525  (contained  in  the  tirst  "  Libro  de  Cabildo"  of  Mexico),  containing  a  complaint, 
against  the  Franciscan  friars  for  "  meddling  with  matters  of  civil  jurisdiction  and  gov 
ernment."  See  also  the  report  of  Herrera  about  the  convention  ("Junta")  at  Barce 
lona,  in  Spain  in  1529  (Dec.  IV,  lib.  VI,  cap.  XI,  p.  118,  etc). 

"« Introduction  to  Motolinia  ("  Col.  de  Doc.,"  Vol.  I,  p.  L).  Torquemada  (Lib.  XV, 
cap.  XXII,  pp.  56,  57-59;. 


443 

even  in  their  letter  to  the  emperor,  dated  1st  of  September,  1526,146 
the  "apostles  of  Mexico"  insisted  upon  a  thorough  establishment 
of  what  Mr.  Prescott  so  justly  calls  the  "vicious"  S3rstem  of  Re- 
partimientos,  representing  that  an  immediate  and  thorough  inter 
mingling  of  both  races  alone  could  promote  the  interests  of 
conversion.147 

Still,  an  improvement  in  the  system  gradually  took  place.  The 
civil  and  criminal  jurisdiction  over  the  natives,  which  formerly  had 
been  vested  in  each  landholder,148  was  placed  in  the  hands  of 
special  officers  of  the  crown.  It  was  directed  that  the  owner 
should  reside  on  his  property,  that  the  Indians  could  not  be  sepa 
rated  from  the  soil  and  finally,  on  the  20th  of  November,  1542, 
the  "new  laws  and  ordonnances  for  the  government  of  the  Indies" 
were  promulgated,  which  contained  such  restrictions  upon  the 
"Repartimientos,"  that  their  further  extension  and  increase  was 
rendered  impossible,  and  the  number  of  those  existing,  greatly 
limited.  The  Indians  themselves  were  declared  direct  vassals  to 
the  crown  of  Spain.149 

Although  in  many  parts  of  Spanish  America  these  laws  were 
but  "obeyed  though  not  executed/'150  they  still  called  forth  a 

146 "  Col.  de  Documentos  "  (Vol.  II,  pp.  155, 156  and  157).  Joint  letter  of  Franciscan 
and  Dominican  monks  (p.  549,  etc.). 

147 "  Col.  de  Doc.,"  II,  pp.  155-157,  549,  etc.;  also  letter  of  Fray  Domingo  de  Betanzos 
(pp.  190-197).  Notwithstanding  the  agreement  between  Franciscan  and  Dominican 
monks  on  that  point,  Las  Casas  continued  to  protest  in  the  most  vehement  manner, 
against  the  "  Repartimiento."  See  his  memorial,  jointly  with  Fray  Domingo  de  Santo 
Tomas  (Col.  II,  pp.  231-236),  and  to  the  council  of  the  Indies,  of  1562  or  1563  (Col.  II, 
pp.  595-588),  in  which  he  says:  "Thirdly,  that  the  encomiendas  or  repartimientos  of 
Indians  are  iniquitous,  per  se  wrong,  therefore  tyrannical,  and  such  administration  is 
tyrannical  also.  Fourth,  that  such  as  give  them  commit  a  mortal  sin,  like  those  who 
maintain  them,  and  if  they  do  not  give  them  up,  they  cannot  be  saved." 

148  It  was  customary  for  each  uencomendero  "  to  exercise  civil  and  criminal  juris 
diction  within  his  "  Repai'timiento." 

149  .<  Nuevas  Leyes  y  Ordenanzas  para  la  Gobernacion  de  las  Indias  "  (Col.  de  Doc., 
II,  pp.  204-227),  dated  Valladolid  (Spain),  4  June,  1543,  promulgated  at  Mexico,  24 
March,  1544.    Herrera  (Dec.  VII,  lib.  VI,  cap.  V,  pp.  110-113).    These  new  laws  were 
the  cause  of  bloody  disturbances  in  Spanish  America.    Gomara  (Vedia  I,  pp.  249  and 
250). 

iso «  Se  obedece,  pero  no  se  cumple."  There  are  many  evidences  of  this  saying  hav 
ing  been  put  in  actual  practice.  Joaquin  Acosta  (''Compendio  historico  dol  Descu- 
brimiento  y  de  la  Colonizacion  de  Nueva  Granada,"  1848,  cap.  XVII,  p.  316).  At  the 
arrival  of  tlie  Licentiate  Armendariz  in  Cauca,  sent  to  enforce  the  new  laws,  Belalcazar 
at  once  had  them  promulgated,  but  took  the  responsibility  of  forthwith  also  suspending 
their  execution.  He  wrote  to  the  King  from  Cali,  in  1544,  in  regard  to  his  action.  Acosta 
says  :  *'  Entonces  comenzo  en  el  nuevo  mundo  Espanol  &  campear  la  formula  irrisoria 
de  se  obedece,  pero  no  se  cumple;  con  que  se  eludian  las  ordenes  que  no  les  convenia 
ej'ecutar  a  los  funcionarios  de  aquellas  apartados  comarcas."  Herrera  (Dec.  VII,  lib. 
VII,  cap.  XXIII,  pp.  157  and  158). 


444 

marked  improvement,  at  least  in  the  personal  condition  of  the 
Indians.  They  were,  hereafter,  at  least  to  some  extent,  protected 
from  the  bodily  slavery  in  which  the  former  acts  had  plunged  them. 
In  regard  to  the  tenure  of  lands,  however,  the  laws  wrought  no 
change.  Further  direct  spoliations  became  more  difficult,  but  the 
new  principle  of  private  ownership  had  been  firmly  implanted,  not 
merely  around  but  among  the  natives  themselves,  and  the  oblit 
eration  of  the  ancient  usages,  by  the  extension  of  this  principle, 
could  not  be  stayed. 

Of  the  aboriginal  mode  of  tenure  of  lands  and  of  their  distribu 
tion,  but  one  vestige  remained  —  the  last  monument  so  to  say,  and 
the  one  which  embodies,  happily,  all  its  principal  features.  These 
are  the  lands  of  kinship,  held  in  common  by  the  consanguine  group 
or  calpulli,  and  called  as  we  have  seen,  "calpulalli,"  by  the 
Mexicans. 

Although  their  order  had  been  very  much  disturbed  since  in 
many  cases  the  official  tracts,  "tecpan-tlalli"  and  "tlatoca-  tlalli," 
as  well  as  those  apportioned  to  the  chiefs  as  members  of  the  kin, 
"tlalmilli,"  were  appropriated  by  the  conquerors, —  the  bulk  of  the 
"  calpulalli"  could  not,  for  a  long  time,  be  disintegrated  for  private 
uses,  notwithstanding  the  still  more  nefarious  influence  exercised 
by  the  donation  of  lands  to  individuals,  with  the  faculty  of  barter 
or  sale,  in  the  very  heart  of  the  organization  itself.  Even  up  to 
the  present  time,  these  communal  tracts  are  still  found  in  Mexico, 
occupied  and  tilled  by  the  aborigines  after  their  original  customs.151 

151  Mr.  James  Pascoe,  an  English  gentleman,  resident  of  Toluca,  has  in  a  letter  re 
ported  upon  by  the  French  "Journal  des  Missions  Evangeliqnes"  (1874),  given  a  de 
tailed  description  of  the  condition  of  the  Indians  in  his  vicinity.  His  statements  about 
their  communal  system  of  tenure,  the  eligibility  of  their  chiefs,  etc.,  etc.  ("gober- 
nadores")  are  very  positive  and  plain. 

Mr.  Stephens,  in  "Travels  in  Yucatan"  (Vol.  II,  cap.  I,  pp.  14  and  15),  described  the 
mode  of  life  of  the  settlement  ("rancho")  of  Schawill  near  Nohcacab,  which  settle 
ment  contained  about  "one  hundred  labradores,  or  working  men,  their  lands  are  held 
and  worked  in  common,  and  the  products  are  shared  by  all.  Their  food  is  prepared 
at  one  hut,  and  every  family  sends  for  its  portion,  etc.,  etc." 

Brantz-Mayer :  ("Mexico  as  it  was  and  as  it  is,"  3d  Edition,  18i7).  While  at  the 
hacienda  of  Temisco  near  Cuernavaca:  "he  pointed  out  to  us  the  site  of  an  Indian 
village,  at  the  distance  of  three  leagues,  the  inhabitants  of  which  are  almost  in  their 
native  state.  He  told  us,  that  they  do  not  permit  the  visits  of  white  people;  and  that, 
numbering  more  than  three  thousand,  they  come  out  in  delegations  to  work  at  tne 
haciendas,  being  governed  at  home  by  their  own  magistrates,  administering  their  own 
lands,  and  employing  a  Catholic  priest  to  shrive  them  of  their  sins ;  once  a  year.  The 
money  they  receive  in  payment  of  wages,  at  the  haciendas,  is  taken  home  and  buried ; 
and  as  they  produce  the  cotton  and  skin  for  their  dresses,  and  the  corn  and  beans  for 
their  food,  they  purchase  nothing  at  the  stores  "  (p.  175).  Hon.  E.  G.  Squier,  hi  his  ex- 


445 

At  a  late  hour,  comparatively,  the  government  of  Spain  recog 
nized  the  importance  of  maintaining  this  last  vestige  of  Indian 
land  tenure.  It  was  brought  to  it,  not  only  by  the  incessant 
clamor  of  ecclesiastics  of  various  orders,152  by  the  necessity  of 
restraining  the  power  of  the  new  settlers  over  the  aborigines, 
which  power  threatened  (as  in  Peru)  to  endanger  Spanish  domina 
tion  itself,153  —  but  especially  from  the  conviction,  that  it  was  best 
suited  to  the  wants  of  the  Mexican  natives,  being  the  mode  of 


cellent  Avork  on  Nicaragua,  makes  the  following  very  important  observations  on  the 
tenure  of  lands  there:  (Vol.  I,  cap.  290  and  291).  "The  municipality  of  Subtiaba,  in 
common  with  the  barrios  of  some  of  the  towns,  holds  lands,  as  I  have  said,  in  virtue 
of  royal  grants,  in  its  corporate  capacity.  These  lands  are  inalienable,  and  are  leased 
to  the  inhabitants  at  low  and  almost  nominal  rates.  Every  citizen  is  entitled  to  a  suffi 
cient  quantity  to  enable  him  to  support  himself  and  his  family;  for  which  he  pays  from 
four  rials  (half  a  dollar),  to  two  dollars  a  year.  This  practice  seems  to  have  been  of 
aboriginal  institution;  for  under  the  ancient  Indian  organization,  the  right  to  live  was 
recognized  as  a  fundamental  principle  in  the  civil  and  social  system.  No  man  was 
supposed  to  be  entitled  to  more  laud  than  was  necessary  to  his  support;  nor  was  he 
permitted  to  hold  more  than  that,  to  the  exclusion  or  injury  of  others.  In  fact,  many 
of  the  institutions  of  the  Indians  in  this  country  were  recognized,  and  have  been  per 
petuated  by  the  Spaniards."  The  bearings  of  these  remarks,  upon  our  subject,  are 
easily  noticed,  and  need  no  further  comments.  That  part  of  the  indigenous  popula 
tion  of  which  the  learned  traveller  treats,  are  from  the  same  stock  as  the  Mexicans. 

The  document  which  has  already  occupied  our  attention,  namely  :  the  grant  of  Cortes 
to  the  chiefs  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco  (See  note  136)  also  furnishes  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  these  communal  tracts  in  Mexico,  and  their  recoguizance  by  the 
Spanish  government.  This  grant  was  the  object  or  cause  of  a  long  suit,  which  we 
shall  refer  to  hereafter, —  the  inhabitant's  of  the  two  pueblos  suing  their  chiefs  for  res 
titution  of  the  communal  property.  This  shows  that  the  "calpulli"  in  fact,  if  not  in 
name  perhaps,  still  existed  at  least  in  the  past  century.  The  litigation  alluded  to 
occurred  between  the  years  1755  and  17G4. 

lr2  These  protestations  were  mainly  issued  at  the  example  of  the  indefatigable  Las 
Casas.  It  would  be  superfluous  to  refer  to  them  in  detail.  But  it  is  remarkable  with 
what  freedom  of  language  this  violent  though  noble  character  was  permitted  to  speak. 
We  have  already  quoted  (note  147),  his  memorial  to  the  council  of  the  Indies  (written 
in  15H2  or  15(33).  In  that  document  he  goes  so  far  as  to  say:  "First,  that  all  the  wars 
called  conquests  ("  conquistas  "  applying  it  to  the  New  World  exclusively),  were  and  are 
unjust  and  the  very  acts  of  tyrants.  Second,  that  all  the  Kingdoms  and  Lordships  of 
the  Indies  are  held  by  us  through  usurpation  only  ....  Fifth  :  that  the  King  our  Lord, 
whom  God  may  keep  sale  and  prosperous,  cannot,  with  all  the  power  God  has  given 
him,  justify  the  wars  and  robberies  made  to  these  people,  nor  the  Repartimientos  and 
encomiendas, —  more  than  he  could  justify  the  wars  and  robberies  committed  against 

the  Chris;  tian  by  the  Turks Eighth:  that  the  natives  of  all  the>e  parts  and 

wherever  we  may  have  entered  the  Indies  have  a  perfect  right  to  make  war  upon  us  or 
to  expel  us  and  wipe  us  off  the  face  of  the  earth,  which  right  they  will  preserve  until 
the  day  of  judgment"  (Col.  de  Doc.  II,  p.  598).  This  is  strong  talk  from  the  Bishop  of 
Chiapas,  not  only  against  the  Emperor,  but  against  the  Holy  See,  which  had  donated 
the  Indies  to  Spain. 

153 It  is  well  known  that  the  liberation  of  the  Indians  from  personal  servitude  was  a 
measure,  not  only  of  humanity  and  justice,  but  also  of  policy,  on  the  part  of  the  Span 
ish  government,  to  weaken  the  growing  power  of  the  conquerors  and  early  colonists. 
The  troubles  in  Peru  give  a  good  example  of  the  state  of  affairs. 


446 

tenure  of  lands  corresponding  to  undisturbed  aboriginal  society. 
Thus  the  calpulli  were,  to  a  limited  extent,  protected,  nay  fos 
tered,  and  recognized  in  law,  even  as  late  as  the  past  century.154 
Like  all  remains  of  "ancient  society,"  they  also  are  bound  to  dis 
appear,  or  be  transformed  in  a  manner  suitable  to  the  exigencies 
of  a  higher  culture.  But  it  may  not  be  amiss  to  quote,  at  the 
close  of  this  investigation,  a  tribute  paid  to  their  value  for  the 
wants  of  Indian  society  by  Alonzo  de  Zurita,  a  Spanish  official  of 
perspicacity,  deep  knowledge,  and  honest  judgment,  in  his  memo 
rial  to  the  King  of  Spain,  written  about  the  year  15G0.155 

154  The  litigation  over  the  grant  to  the  caciques  of  Axapusco  and  Tepeyahualco,  to 
which  we  referred  in  note  151, —  is  commented  upon  as  follows  by  Sefiore  J.  F.  Ramirez 
in  his  letter  proving  the  authenticity  of  the  document,  dated  30  Sept.,  1863,  and  printed 
in  the  Introduction  to  the  "Real-Ejecutoria,  etc.,  etc."  "  D.  Juan  de  los  Santos,  D. 
Antonio  Esteban,  D.  Juan  and  D.  Lorenzo  Morales,  with  the  title  of  caciques  and  prin 
cipals  of  Tepeyahualco,  and  with  the  right  of  successors  and  lawful  descendants  of  D. 
Juan  and  D.  Fernando  Morales  "companions  (they  saM),  of  the  illustrious  Hernan 
Cortes  in  the  conquest  and  pacification  of  these  kingdoms"  had  been  in  possession  of 
the  municipal  government  of  that  pueblo  and  of  Axapusco,  and  consequently  of  the 
administration  of  their  communal  property.  The  dexterous  policy  of  the  Spanish  gov 
ernment  soon  conceived  the  danger  of  that  system,  which  tvas  very  general  in  its  origin, 
and  therefore  sought  to  undermine  it  in  its  own  particular  way.  It  sought,  therefore, 
to  develop  the  municipal  (communal)  principle  of  institutions,  and  setting  the  demo 
cratic  element  to  action,  thus  placed  the  caciques  in  opposition  with  their  former  sub 
ordinates,  destroying  their  influence  and  power.  In  the  present  case,  the  viceroy 
authorized  the  pueblos  mentioned  to  elect  their  municipal  authorities,  and  thereby 
Santos  and  the  Morales  were  removed  from  the  administration  of  the  properties." 
These  remarks  are  very  important.  But  the  parties  appealed  from  this  division  and 
a  long  suit  ensued.  The  chiefs  based  their  claims  upon  the  grant  of  Cortes  exclu 
sively  (pp.  X1I1  and  XIV),  and  the  pueblos  attacked  the  authenticity  of  that  document; 
at  the  same  time  invoking  the  rights  of  possession  ("plenario  de  posesion.")  The  re 
sult  of  the  litigation  is  described  as  follows :  ''  declaring  the  possession  in  favor  of  the 
pueblos,  condemning  Santos  to  restitution  of  the  fruits  (proceeds),  but  leaving  aside 
the  rights  of  the  parties  upon  the  point  of  ownership"  (juicio  de  propiedad).  The 
whole  case  shows  that  the  Spanish  government  recognized  : 

First:  The  communal  organization  of  the  tribes,  and  the  elective  constituency  of  its 
chieftains. 

Second:  That  the  hereditary  office  of  chiefs,  and  the  hereditary  ownership  of  lands, 
were  Spanish  innovations  ("que  a  su  principio  fue  mtiy  ordinal  io").  Now  this  origin 
("principle")  is  certainly  not  intended  to  go  farther  back  than  the  conquest. 

Third  :  That  the  only  right  and  title,  as  claimed  by  the  chiefs,  was  derived  from  the 
grant  of  Cortes,  and  that  they  did  not  claim  any  prior  right,  connected  with  desceu- 
dancy  or  with  privilege  of  caste. 

Fourth:  Consequently,  that  the  Spanish  government  itself  recognized  the  anterior 
democratic  constituency  of  the  Indian  community,  and  its  customs,  regarding  them  as 
prevailing  even  over  the  acts  and  disposition  of  Cortes, —  although  to  him  the  Spaniards 
owed  the  conquest  of  the  country. 

106  Rapport  sur  les  diflerentes  classes  de  chefs  de  la  Nouvelle  Espagne,"  pp.  f53  and 
64.  The  original  of  this  highly  important  report  to  the  King  of  Spain,  has  been  printed 
once,  but  very  defectively,  in  the  "  Collecion  de  Documentor  Iiu'-ditos  relativos  al  Di-s- 
cubrimiento,  etc.,  etc."  It  is  much  to  be  regretted  that  my  learned  friend,  Sr.  Ica/.bal- 
ceta,  has  not  incorporated  that  copy  of  it  pertaining  to  Sr.  Ramirez,  in  his  valuable 


447 

"The  good  order  reigning  in  the  calpullis  is  a  strong  reason  to 
protect  them  in  law,  and  to  prevent  them  from  becoming  inter 
mingled,  as  they  are  already  nearly  everywhere ;  for  once  broken 
up,  the  harmony  which  they  originally  exhibited  can  never  be 
reestablished  again.  The  ignorance  about  these  institutions,  and 
the  little  regard  paid  to  them,  are  the  cause  that  many  Indians 
were  given  lands  out  of  their  calpullis,  which  they  (originally) 
had  received  only  to  cultivate,  and  (this)  on  their  simple  assertion 
that  they  and  their  ancestors  had  held  and  tilled  them.  In  doing 
this,  they  but  follow  the  advice  of  the  Spaniards  (mestizoes)  and 
mulattoes,  who  involve  them  in  litigations,  and  who  live  from 

these  squabbles In  vain  the  chiefs  deny  such  assertions, 

claiming  that  the  lands  belong  to  the  calpulli ;  they  are  not  heeded, 
the  rightful  owners  are  despoiled,  and  those  to  whom  they  are  ad 
judged  do  not  profit  by  it,  since  they  sell  them,  or  alienate  them 
(otherwise)  to  the  detriment  of  the  calpulli." 


Out  of  the  scanty  remains  thus  left  of  certain  features  of  abo 
riginal  life  in  ancient  Mexico,  as  well  as  out  of  the  conflicting 
statements  about  that  country's  early  history,  we  have  now  at 
tempted  to  reconstruct  the  conceptions  of  the  Mexican  aborigines 
about  tenure  of  lands,  as  well  as  their  manner  of  distribution 
thereof.  Our  inquiries  seem  to  justify  the  following  conclusions  : 

1.  The  notion  of  abstract  ownership  of  the  soil,  either  by  a 
nation  or  state,  or  by  the  head  of  its  government,  or  by  individ 
uals,  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  Mexicans. 

2.  Definite  possessory  right  was  vested  in  the  kinships  com- 


•'  Coleccion  de  Documentos  para  la  Historia  de  Mexico."—  Alonso  de  Zurita  lived  in 
America  from  15iO  till  1530;  or  about  nineteen  years.  Of  these  he  spent  two  at  St. 
Domingo,  three  years  in  N.  Granada,  Sa.  Marta,  Cartagena,  and  the  Cabo  de  la  Vela, 
three  years  in  Guatemala,  and  about  eleven  in  Mexico.  His  '•  Report "  consists  of  a 
series  of  answers  to  queries  put  by  the  King,  and  sent  from  Valladolid,  Dec.,  1553.  If 
we  could  obtain  all  the  answers  given  to  these  questions  from  all  parts  of  Spanish 
America,  and  all  as  elaborate  and  truthful  as  those  of  Zurita,  Palucio  and  Oudogardo, 
our  knowledge  of  aboriginal  history  and  ethnology  of  Spanish  America  would  be 
much  advanced. 


448 

posing  the  tribe  ;  but  the  idea  of  sale,  barter,  or  conve}Tance  or 
alienation  of  such  by  the  kin  had  not  been  conceived. 

3.  Individuals,  whatever  might  be  their  position  or  office,  with 
out  any  exception,  held  but  the  right  to  use  certain  defined  lots 
for  their  sustenance,  which  right,  although  hereditary  in  the  male 
line,  was  nevertheless  limited  to  the  conditions  of  residence  within 
the  area  held  by  the  kin,  and  of  cultivation  either  by  or  in  the 
name  of  him  to  whom  the  said  lots  were  assigned. 

4.  No  possessory  rights  to  land  were  attached  to  any  office  or 
chieftaincy.     As  members  of  a  kin,  each  chief  had  the  use  of  a 
certain  lot,  which  he  could  rent  or  farm  to  others,  for  his  benefit. 

5.  For  the  requirements  of  tribal  business,  and  of  the  govern 
mental  features  of  the  kinships  (public  hospitality  included),  cer 
tain  tracts  were  set  apart  as  official  lands,  out  of  which  the  official 
households  were  supplied  and  sustained  ;  but  these  lands  and  their 
products  were  totally  independent  from  the  persons  or  families  of 
the  chiefs  themselves. 

6.  Conquest  of  any  tribe  by  the  Mexicans  was  not  followed  by 
an  annexation  of  that  tribe's  territory,  nor  by  an  apportionment 
of  its  soil  among  the  conquerors.     Tribute  was  exacted,  and,  for 
the  purpose  of  raising  that  tribute  (in  part),  special  tracts  were 
set  off;  the  crops  of  which  were  gathered  for  the  storehouses  of 
Mexico. 

7.  Consequently,  as  our  previous  investigation  (of  the  warlike 
institutions  and  customs  of  the  ancient  Mexicans)  have  disproved 
the  generally  received  notion  of  a  military  despotism  prevailing 
among  them, —  so  the  results  of  this  review  of  Tenure  and  distribu 
tion  of  lands  tend  to  establish  :  "that  the  principle  and  institution 
of  feudality  did  not  exist  in  aboriginal  Mexico." 


